Forum: Author Hangout

I agree you must do something.
I suggest using italics. Hopefully, readers will interpret them as showing a word taken from a foreign language.

The same problem with italics as exists for single quotes: those conventions have specific uses, which will only further confuse readers. It seems capitalizing the word is the simplest solution, though the only question is also capitalizing Chess, which isn't necessary. Since the reference isn't a central story element, merely adding additional character development, it's use is inherently limited (three reference in two paragraphs.

I'm inclined to agree capitalizing it is the safest solution, but I'd leave chess in lower case.

I'm inclined to agree, though it's harder justifying it based on usage.

When you agree with yourself, it's time for Richard to bring in the puns.

Yes, he's the go-to guy who pops up chesst when needed, although there is some mah-jong of error ;)

AJ

The usual practice is 'chess' in lower case but 'Trivial Pursuit' with capitals.

Again, that's standard, since "Trivial Pursuit" is a trademarked name, while chess (and Go) aren't, since they're much too old to be trademarked. Still, the use of capitalizing proper names fits in with reader expectations, so hopefully they won't question it too much when they see it.

I would capitalize Go, but not chess. To me, Go is more like Monopoly (even if it's no longer trademarked) while chess is generic.

As I said, it makes sense given the context and situation (and expectation of readers), but it's difficult to justify if you're called on it. There are NO Style Guides for doing so, though as we all know, what's accepted is what works in a story, not what style guides dictate.

But thanks for all the varied input. I was waiting for the final word from Switch, as I just knew he'd have an opinion on the topic. It helps a lot.

Instead of responding, Em turned to her partner. "You play chess? I'd have thought go would be your choice of board game."

That doesn't work for me. To me, "chess" is a type of game (common noun). "Go" is a specific game (proper noun). Maybe it's because "chess" and "poker" are so common.

If you were to make it lower case it would have to be in italics for the same reason non-common foreign words are. To let the reader know you didn't make a mistake.

To me, "chess" is a type of game (common noun). "Go" is a specific game (proper noun).

To me it's the other way round - chess is a specific game with one significant variant. Go is more of a type with two significant variants: Chinese and Japanese.

AJ

To me it's the other way round - chess is a specific game with one significant variant. Go is more of a type with two significant variants: Chinese and Japanese.

Plus the classic Go and the much simpler Go Moku (primarily an easy kids' game). But in this case, the "board game" reference doesn't work because the character is Chinese American, and the comment is based on classic racist associations, which he addresses. The "board game" defuses the quasi-racist tinge to the comment, while leaving it off makes the statement a much stronger set-up.

@helmut_meukel

As a native German speaker I'm generally unsure when to capitalize words in English, in German it's simple: if it's a noun it's capitalized.

How about field or open air games like golf, football, baseball, cricket, rugby, hockey, lacrosse, tennis ...
in-door games like royal tennis, basket-ball, ping-pong, ... ?

It's actually fairly simple, as it's NOT a grammar rule but a simple Style Guideline. A rock isn't capitalized because it's just a rock, a simple noun, but Jinga is the proper noun (trademarked name) for a game found in many stores. The idea is that proper names "Jake Smith", "Donald Trump" and even "Coca-Cola" get capitalized, while "president" and "soda" (or "soda-jerk") don't.

the comment is based on classic racist associations,

Context is everything!

I was wondering about that - it seemed a strange thing to say since chess and go are both deterministic thus appealing to the same personality type.

AJ

I was wondering about that - it seemed a strange thing to say since chess and go are both deterministic thus appealing to the same personality type.

It's a character building moment. When the main character's Chinese-American partner states he likes Chess, it leaves his partner curious, so he explains why, which reflects on his upbringing in a mixed community.

or, in events sponsored by the Ing Chang-ki Foundation, it is spelled goe.

Ha-ha. Spelling it "goe" would be worse than doing nothing at all, confusing even those already familiar with the game.

It does seem, though, that there's a concerted effort to distinguish the game by capitalizing the name.

There is a modern-day game of Go which is still under copyright/patent or whatever, but I believe CW is referring to the traditional Chinese/Japanese game which was invented before copyrights/patents. There are many manufacturers of go boards and stones but I'm not aware of any public adverts for them or standards thereof.

When I played, we used generic unbranded equipment sold by the London Go Centre (which seems to have moved a few times).

AJ

In your first line you referred to Go and not go or GO.

That is not the game of go under discussion. After trying go for the first time, I decided to buy my own set and went to a toyshop. They said they did have Go and showed me something in a cardboard box that was quite different. A board may have been involved but I believe dice were too and it catered for more than two players.

AJ

A board may have been involved but I believe dice were too and it catered for more than two players.

Traditional Go can be played by multiple players (three or four), though not in competitive play.

Can you cite a source for this?

Personal recollection only, at this point. It's been a long time since I visited any Go sites to study the game. Back in the day, in my teens, I read several books on the subject, but that's the extent of my knowledge on it.

The multiplayer revolves around either using teams (2 x 2) or having a third player who takes turns like the main two players, and often acts as a wild card, upsetting everyone else's strategy. Needless to say, I never played these variations very often, as finding any Go players was a challenge, and most Go players wouldn't play anything other than the competition version (1 x 1).

But adding more players this way would probably cause chaos.

It would be like adding more players to a game of chess.

AJ

Haven't played Diplomacy since High School (class of 1979), not from lack of interest, but rather that I've never been able to round up enough people who were interested at the same time. I've owned a copy for most of that time, just in case.

I played it in college (back when school kids still played board games. It was just before D&D was first launched, and the Diplomacy games were incredibly intense, with complex negotiations held in separate rooms as the combatants worked out competing alliances.

But then, back in those days, I was also playing "War Games" reacting famous military battles which could take a week or more to play out.

A player gains an advantage in go by surrounding and thereby capturing their opponent's stones. That simply doesn't work with more than two different coloured stones unless you can work out a way for two colours to cooperate, and that's not go.

AJ

A good comparison might be a battlefield where 3 or 4 armies are fighting each other. Everyone has 2 or even 3 enemies to fight against concurrently. Chaos!

Syria.

Yugoslavia ... Donald Trump

I don't get it.

Let's look at Syria. In the country itself you have the Assad government, the secular rebels (Free Syria) and ISIS. Then the neighbors Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Add in the global powers Russia and America.

That's 12. We're used to thinking in binary terms such as Allies and Axis, but in Syria each of these 12 have their own slate of those they support and those they oppose.

Turkey and the US are both NATO members and both are fighting ISIS, but come down on different sides regarding the Kurds. Turkey flies missions against the Kurds and the US flies in support - out of the same airbase in Turkey!

Let's look at Syria. In the country itself you have the Assad government, the secular rebels (Free Syria) and ISIS. Then the neighbors Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Add in the global powers Russia and America.

Don't forget Israel. They attack Hezbollah in Syria when they believe weapons are being delivered to Lebanon. I believe they also return fire when shells land in Israel from Syria.

Go is definitely a game for afficionados and its appeal is its complexity.
While on the surface it may seem less complex than chess, there is only one type of piece, it has taken far longer to develop computers capable of beating the best human players.

What really makes it complicated, is that while the game is all about lines of support and capturing 'safe spaces', no space is ever truly safe, and just when you think you're pulling ahead, your opponent is likely to recapture a huge swath of territory. In that way, it's completely unlike Chess, which is a steady progression towards an end goal.

no space is ever truly safe

That's not true - a configuration with two eyes can never be captured.

AJ

Probably they tried to sell you a box set of games and Go was one of the games in the box.
HM.

No, it was a distinct game in its own right. It was many years ago and I haven't seen it recently so it may well be out of production.

AJ

No, it was a distinct game in its own right. It was many years ago and I haven't seen it recently so it may well be out of production.

It doesn't involve dice, but many Americans are confused between Go and Go Muko, which only involves five spots (dots) across. Thus, if you walk into a game store, they're more likely to sell you the children's game than the adult game.