Talk:Go opening strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Go, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the game of Go. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Need to unify the concepts

It seems that the concpets used in this article need to be unified. The "opening" in "Chinese opening", "fuseki" in "sugou fuseki", "style" in "Shusaku style" (there is already an article named Shusaku opening), and "formation" in "mini-chinese formation", are same. Why use so many different names? In Chinese, we call all of them as "xx 流开局" (literally meaning, "xx style opening") or simply "xx 流" (xx style). I think we can unify these concepts as "opening". That will avoid unnecessary confusion. And I don't think that mini-Chinese formation (opening? fuseki?) is just a side, not "whole-board", opening. If so, then Chinese opening is also a side opening. It's also an opening at one side. What's the distinction? --Neo-Jay 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. 'Formation' in the mini-chinese is one thing, but there is also a famous whole-board opening based around the mini-chinese. 'Shusaku style' for Japanese pro players means a whole way of playing, not just the 1-3-5 formation. I could go into this in the article. I do recognise the 'style' character - the Japanese read it 'ryu', I think, and they also use it for personal style, in the sense of Takagawa-style, Sakata-style and so on. You can see in my web series at [1] how these are different. For example I say 'Shimamura's formation', 'Chinese style' and so on. Charles Matthews 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Neo-Jay 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I recommend a merge between this article and Go_opening_theory. 128.6.175.15 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We have had discussions about this already. Charles Matthews 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a significant distinction and the articles seem to duplicate content IMO, but I restrained myself from invoking the merge request again... -- EmperorBMA|話す 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to ask how much you know about all this. Charles Matthews 22:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)