Talk:Nadare jōseki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why change the algebraic notation, to one that is never, ever used for go? Charles Matthews 14:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually that is the notation used in most joseki books that I have seen. It is very commonly used in openings and especially discussing the first few moves of the game because when there are few stones on the board moving in any of the 4 quadrants is exactly equivalent. As it was using the algebraic notation implied that it should be in the lower left hand quadrant and oriented in such a way that it was less illustrative. Plus it might imply that the joseki only counted if played in that quadrant, when in fact it could start on any 3—4 point and proceed. Dalf | Talk 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Joseki books hardly use any type of notation. Go players talk about 3-4 (komoku), but without consistency (is that x, y or y, x). The point about orientation seems to me to be trivial. It is obviously against common sense. Chess players are very used to c4 type notations, which is why I used it here. It is also used in go, since Korschelt. Charles Matthews 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well I think it is far more clear this way, and not confusing at all for readers who are new to go or readers who are long time Go players. It is also not unprecedented as I stated. The Chess analogy is not 100% on though since the chess board does not have the same kind of symmetry and in also has other notations that do account for what symmetry there is (i.e. Descriptive notation). However, if you feel strongly that the algebraic notation should be used go ahead and change it back I won’t fight over it. Dalf | Talk 16:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
If it's a question of clarity, this point should be addressed once and for all at joseki (i.e. the basic go opening theory page here). That is where some conventions might be established. The usual way of discussing joseki is by diagrams, of course. WP is much more awkward from that point of view, than Sensei's Library. In this case I was just concerned to notate it somehow, and give links for extra information. If you look around here, you will find a great number of pages on chess openings, so it is not ridiculous to do it that way. Charles Matthews 16:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree on the score that it should be standard. I was actually thinking about starting a wikiproject for Go like the one for chess. The Go pages here are pretty horrible actually, they have lots of duplication and at least one case of two pages linking to each other as sources for information that neither of them have. As far as the diagrams go we have created a few templates (which I did not use on the diagram here) that actually make this pretty easy. The templates still need some work and I am going to do a bit of work to make them easier to use but for the time being they are pretty good. Dalf | Talk 17:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's about time we had a WikiProject. I have written much about go elsewhere; so I wasn't so keen to do that all again at WP. But if we are talking about standardising on notations, implementing diagrams and so on, then we need a project set up. Also, there are quite a few Wikipedian go players I know here, and things might go faster with some focus. (But please - not too much about the rules!). Charles Matthews 16:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)