I've noticed that this article always capitalizes the "g" in "go" even in cases where it is not being used as part of a proper name or the first word of a sentence. Is this based upon something in the MOS or is it simply common convention? Other game articles, such those for chess, backgammon, checkers, card games, etc., do not capitalize the first letter when the word is being used as a common noun and I think this is consistent with commonly accepted rules for capitalization. So, in my opinion, "I play go" is correct while "I play Go" is not for exactly the same reasons that "I play poker" is correct and "I play Poker" is not.
Is "go" being capitalized because it is a foreign word or for emphasis? If that's the case, then I think it's better to use italics instead such as "I play go."
Is there concern that people will mistake "go" (the game) for "go" (the verb)? I guess that's possible if no context was provided at all, but since the article is about "go" (the game) that seems a little bit unlikely.
I am interested in this because I am currently working on some articles about shogi. "Shogi" is also a foreign word and is also a board game. "Shogi" is capitalized when it is part of a proper name, e.g., the Japan Shogi Association, or used to begin a sentence, but otherwise it is typically not. So, I am trying to understand how it is different from "go". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
To me it seems like a pretty weak thing to do. People ought to get over that noun/verb conclusion about one second after they learn that it's the name of the game. 58.250.175.74 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Last sentence in the lead compares the number of legal board positions (est. 2 x 10^170) to the number of atoms in the universe (est. perhaps 10^85). This is an utterly absurd comparison, considering one number is roughly the square of the other. One might instead imagine replacing each atom by an entire universe; then the total number of atoms would be comparable (but of course that would be too complicated a statement to put in the article). Really, the number is so vast nobody gets any wiser by such an idle comparison. I think it should simply be deleted (but my recent deletion has been reverted).