![]() StartingPoints Paths Referenced by Homepages
|
Named points
Path: PleaseReviewMe · Prev: BoardGeography · Next: Endgame
Keywords: Go term
footnotes [01] I've also seen "Somok". [02] This is not Japlish, John F.: "The Japanese do talk about hoshi no jouseki, referring to the corner only. (Conversely the phrases hoshishita and hoshiwaki refer only to the side hoshi.) Hoshi is star rather than star point, and in go it has another important meaning. It is the sign for a win in a table. Stars are not pointy in Japan - they are small white circles because that's how they used to be drawn in old astronomy maps (ditto in China)." [03] Both the 2-2 point and 1-2 point have a very special role. Why don't they have a name of their own? Or do they? -- mAsterdam discussion
(moved from First moves until Floris: Maybe move this linked diagram to the 'Joseki' page with a header of Quick Reference or so? Also I think the side hoshi points should be removed and I've added 6-3 and 6-4 points. Charles If they appear, the information should at least be correct. But probably they shouldn't appear. If those, why not 5-5? Floris: Why should they not appear? They *are* after all opening plays. You speak as if I'm the only one to ever add partly incorrect/wrong information here on SL, i don't like that. Also added the 5-5 point now. Also, can someone who knows the character for 'go' (five) and 'oo' (large) please edit them in this page? Charles I think you or anyone else can expect to have it pointed out, if you link to a page like 6-3 point and add information that isn't compatible with what is there. I think mAsterdam can decide whether those extra points are useful here, or not. The page level is 'Beginner'. I'd say a real beginner has no need to know about the 4-5 point, even.
mAsterdam First of all: thank you very much for your feedback - I really need that. I have made some changes to address your concerns. Please delete the above if you feel happy with the result, and don't if you don't. BTW 1: I tried takamoku a few times now, I like it. BTW 2: Charles: do you mind if I try to get smallest number first in systematic names for points on the board ?
BTW 3: There are several characters for "go" (e.g. at a John F. I don't want to sound like a killjoy but since the way SL is developing indicates it is to be in good part a reference tool, I think rather more care is needed when venturing into Oriental languages. The characters for ootakamoku and oomokuhazushi are wrong. 5-5 is not go-go in Japanese (it is go no go). The Korean needs major re-appraisal. But hoshi is not Japlish in this sense - the Japanese do talk about hoshi no jouseki, referring to the corner only. (Conversely the phrases hoshishita and hoshiwaki refer only to the side hoshi.) To be pedantic, hoshi is star rather than star point, and in go it has another important meaning. It is the sign for a win in a table. Stars are not pointy in Japan - they are small white circles because that's how they used to be drawn in old astronomy maps (ditto in China). mAsterdam You are not (a killjoy). The way I see it is you provide essential information, necessary to make the reference material good. There is way too much to yet be written, there are way too few knowledgeable writers to write all of it. While I'm learning I write down what I think I understand the way I understand it. No doubt I make unintentional mistaeks. Still I think (hope) most of it is right and useful. Not perfect, good enough. But it is very hard to find out what is wrong on my own. For example at elementary moves I first got nobi all wrong (mistook it for narabi). After reading a lot more I think I have a better understanding now, and I plan to work out the consequences of my new understanding. While this process is complicated and intensive, the actual changes I am going to make will be minor. It is so much easier, faster, more practical when some pedantic (not!) person comes along and says: hey it's not like that, this is how it is. I'll work out the consequences of your nuggets to the best of my ability. And I'll make mistakes. Scartol: Am I the only one who wonders why the 4-3 point is not in this diagram or the simplified one on the main page? mAsterdam: I chose not to, but I'm not too sure it's the right choice, so if you have arguments to include 4-3 (and 5-3) besides 3-4 and 3-5, please share them. This is why I did not include them: 4-3 is equivalent to 3-4, 5-3 is equivalent to 3-5 (except for etiquette). While (I think) these equivalences are completely obvious to everybody, I could not easily explain them precisely. If they are in the diagram they need to be explained. So, to avoid this (IMHO unnecessary) complication I left them out. Path: PleaseReviewMe · Prev: BoardGeography · Next: Endgame This is a copy of the living page "Named points" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |