Talk:History of Go

Expansion[edit]

Isn't this duplicate to the history section of Go? Or does anyone have mind to expand this article into much longer one later? -- Taku 11:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Go or chess?[edit]

is the board found a go board or a chess board? The article says chess TWICE but tags it as a go board. Any more informtion available? Article reads poorly this way Rick Boatright 03:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The original text had "chess" throughout, even though it obviously refers to a game (with unknown rules) played on a 17x17 board. The editors here mystified this into "go". Furthermore, this article appeared originally in a Chinese newspaper, which is not a public domain source, and is presented here without proper quotation or credit, i.e. it is plagiarised. It should be removed immediately, imho, for this reason and for the reason that it is not an overview of the history of go. User:213.77.158.88

In the Chinese language, "Chinese chess" is called xiangqi while "Go" is called weiqi. The "qi" part of both words can be translated as "chess", leading to common imprecise translations. For example, in the movie Hero, the English subtitles translate the game played in the movie as "chess" even though it is clearly seen on the screen to be Go. —Lowellian (talk) 22:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Link to chess[edit]

I'd wondered about the odd 19-by-19 board. It occurred to me that Chinese Chess is played on a 9-by-9 grid. Stick four of those together, treat the joins as an extra line and you have the standard game.

Of course the Chinese game includes a cannon, and so cannot be vastly old. It must derive from some older game, probably on an 8-by-8 grid, since that is how the game is played elsewhere. This would be true whether the game was originally Chinese, Persian or Indian (the last of these being favoured in the West).

Stick together four 8-by-8 boards and you have a 17-by-17 Go board, as described on the main page.

This is wild speculation, of course. But I thought people might be interested.

--GwydionM 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually XiangQi (chinese chess) is played on a 9x10 board. I do have a question about the board size they found though, how is it that the board measures 5.7 cm to 28.5 cm long ? that's a huge difference, is anyone sure it's not a typo?70.111.251.203 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full sentence: The board, slightly damaged and irregular, measures 5.7 cm to 28.5 cm long, 17 cm to 19.7 cm wide and 3.6 cm thick. It is carved with 17 ordinate and 17 transversal lines, which is similar to the modern (19×19) board. It is damaged and irregular, so it is not a square anymore. It originally it was squarish (according to the greed) it had to be, at least, 28.5 x 19.7cm. --81.39.159.42 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the board is only a broken fragment you cannot tell whether it is 17 x 17 or not -- all you can really say is that it is at least 13 x 13. 17 x 17 is probably a guess based on the grid of the complete Wangdu stone board. BabelStone (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the bad pun[edit]

I think it would be better to remove the abysmal pun from the title of the third section. Puns (especially bad ones) shouldn't be in an encyclopedia outside their own, dedicated entry.

88.115.216.68 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean history[edit]

I think we need to at least make mention of when the game spread to Korea in the intro, and possibly expand mention of how it (relatively) recently produced so many champions. VanTucky 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Woman Playing Go" picture[edit]

It was removed shortly ago, and since it wasn't blatant vandalism or anything I don't want to just undo it, but what's the problem with it? The edit summary mentions it her "clearly" not playing go, but... well, look at it. Could have fooled me. I'm not saying it's vital that the picture be put back, but I don't see the motivation for its removal, either. Unforgiven24 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me (I thought I was logged in but I wasn't). The woman is looking at a Go board on which is placed a small group of stones in the centre. As Go is not played from the centre of the board, this is clearly just a Go board with some stones on it, not an actual game of Go. But even if it were to be a picture of a woman playing an actual game of Go it would still be totally irrelevant for an article on the History of Go. BabelStone (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was going to argue (well, mention) that it looks a little more to the side, so maybe it's just not a very good game, but then there's no other stones on the board at all. Maybe she's playing a learning game or demonstrating? Meh, suppose it's not important anyway.

In any case, I see your point. I was just curious because while (like I mentioned) I'm not at all bothered by it being removed, I was curious why someone bothered to remove it. Thanks for placating my curiosity. Unforgiven24 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the original source for the picture and it states 'Not Go. Pente' -- which is played from the centre. BabelStone (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Go. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Go. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source[edit]

I was checking sources in the article and I was unable to reach Brooks 2007 (even there's no title for this one). I removed. Also, I fixed Shotwell because the current link is unreachable, but I found another working link. --Lugskneel (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]