The biggest article on the game of Go

[breakfast]

I should have added this to the Wikipedia page, but there is a censorship there. Edits are canceled on a regular basis. So we published it as a separate article on one of the world's most popular websites dedicated to the rules of various board games: https://gamerules.com/comprehensive-gui ... baduk-igo/

I'm sure this article is better and more detailed than what you can learn about Go on Wikipedia. We can make it even bigger, even better. What did we forget to write about?

[John Fairbairn]

Well, Sasha, I know you know about GoGoD and my go books, but...

https://gogodonline.co.uk/

[hzamir]

The article says that the ranks in go are like karate. But it is actually more correct to say the opposite.

[jlt]

The article says "Throughout the long history of Go, there has not been a single person with dementia, although there are long-lived players".

That's hard to believe.

[gennan]

The reverse komi table in the Handicap section seems wrong to me. A handicap of n stones converted to handicap value in points would be (2 x n - 1) x komi. The table and the text seem to say it's about n x komi, which is off by almost a factor of 2.

I suppose that for an article to be linked from wikipedia, the article should get its facts straight and not contain obvious mistakes like that.
I didn't read the rest of the article, because it is very long and seeing such an obvious factual mistake in the early parts makes me doubtful about the quality/accuracy of the rest of it.

[Javaness2]

The article says "Throughout the long history of Go, there has not been a single person with dementia, although there are long-lived players".

That's hard to believe.

Just has to be flat out wrong. I think Bill Streeten was an example, smashing gentleman, long term memory went first.

I do love reading a bit of the sovietique culture, but let's not ignore the errors. The article could do with some correction.

[Knotwilg]

Arguably the biggest article about Go on the Internet is Sensei's Library. I understand why some people dislike it: it doesn't have sgf integrated, there are no strong contributors (left), the collectivist approach takes away the personal pride authors take in their material, bad information may drive out good information and the modular structure puts a certain responsibility on the user to find their way. While all of that is true, I still think it's the most comprehensive piece of structured information, with hyperlinks to both its inside as towards the outside. Even with today's low level of contribution and maintenance, it remains relevant by and large, even up to date with the evolution of the game after AI revolutionized it.

An article like this one has several merits, countering some of the drawbacks mentioned above. But the single fact that it doesn't even mention Sensei's Library makes it either weirdly ignorant or implicitly hostile, if not omitting its most important source.