fuseki
Enable an agent to recognise, assess and develop a Go whole-board opening by relating early stone placement to strategic options, local obligations and the conditions of the game.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 15 findings · 24 questions
Fuseki identity and boundaries Establishes which sense of fuseki is being modelled and what makes the selected material an opening instance.
Term and referent
Connects the registry concept to its intended Go usage.
Intended fuseki sense
Record whether the referent is a whole-board opening phase, position, sequence or named formation, preserving the terminology of the consulted authority.
- What evidence identifies this registry entry with Go fuseki? provenance
- Does the consulted authority use fuseki for a phase, a formation, a sequence or a broader strategic practice? definition
Opening transition
Locates the instance within the development of the game.
Opening boundary judgment
Record why opening development remains the relevant frame or why sustained fighting has shifted the analysis toward the middlegame.
- Which features of the position justify treating it as opening development? boundary
- What position change would cause the agent to hand the analysis to a middlegame model? action
Opening instance and pattern Makes the board state reproducible and separates pattern identity from superficial resemblance.
Board context
Records the concrete conditions and history of an opening.
Reconstructible opening
Link the opening to a board position, move history, player to move and game conditions, distinguishing setup stones from played moves.
- Which initial setup and ordered moves reproduce this position? provenance
- What board size, komi, handicap and ruleset govern the comparison? measurement
Formation recognition
Tests named opening matches and their variants.
Supported pattern match
Record the source-defined stones and relationships that support an opening label, permitted rotations or reflections, and deviations that may change its interpretation.
- Which documented arrangement defines the proposed opening name? provenance
- Do move order, opponent placements or displaced stones make this a variant rather than the documented pattern? boundary
Whole-board coordination Explains how opening stones and local outcomes combine across the board.
Territory, influence and direction
Records intended development and the board relationships supporting it.
Placement purpose and support
Distinguish secured territory, prospective territorial frameworks and influence; explain which other stones support the intended development and where it remains vulnerable.
- What does this placement aim to secure or enable, and which existing stones make that aim plausible? definition
- Which opponent invasion, reduction or approach would test the claimed benefit? action
Local sequence integration
Relates corner and side choices to the rest of the opening.
Local result and whole-board fit
Evaluate whether a proposed local result complements nearby and distant stones, including its effect on weak groups, development direction and the opportunity to play elsewhere.
- Why does this local continuation fit the actual surrounding position? boundary
- What concrete continuation tests the cost of leaving the local sequence now? action
Continuation choice and evidence Supports defensible opening decisions and records the limits of their justification.
Candidate development
Compares opening moves through their consequences and opponent replies.
Conditional opening options
Record plausible moves in different areas, the goals they serve, expected replies and reasons to prefer or reject them in this position.
- Which candidate moves address the largest opportunities or most urgent obligations on this board? action
- Which opponent reply would most strongly challenge each candidate's strategic justification? action
Assessment provenance
Separates instructional principles, observed play and analytical evaluations.
Traceable opening judgment
Attribute recommendations to an identified commentary, game corpus or engine analysis and preserve conditions, dates, uncertainty and disagreement.
- Which source or reproducible analysis supports the recommendation, and under what game conditions? provenance
- If evaluations disagree, do they use the same position, scoring perspective, komi and analytical budget? measurement
- What additional evidence would justify changing the preferred continuation? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Identifiers and schemes
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of fuseki this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Cross-cutting context
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- XCT
- Domain
- XCT.QLT
- Other names and narrower kinds
- Chinese opening, shinfuseki
What it is Filled
Fuseki is the opening phase of a game of Go, and the whole-board deployment of stones during that phase, in which players establish positions balancing territory, influence, and prospects for subsequent fighting.
In scope
- Identification of an opening position or sequence as an instance of fuseki.
- Relationships among early corner, side and centre developments.
- Recognition of named opening patterns and materially different variants.
- Whole-board consequences of local sequences and playing elsewhere.
- Contextual comparison of opening continuations and the evidence supporting those comparisons.
Out of scope
- The complete rules, scoring procedure and move-legality model of Go.
- Standalone joseki dictionaries and exhaustive local tactical analysis.
- Full middlegame fighting and endgame calculation.
- Player identity, ranking and tournament administration.
- Apache Jena Fuseki software and its operation as an RDF server.
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise, assess and develop a Go whole-board opening by relating early stone placement to strategic options, local obligations and the conditions of the game.
Distinguishing features Filled
- An analysis must relate opening choices to the board as a whole; an isolated corner sequence is insufficient to describe the fuseki.
- An instance must identify an early-game position or sequence, while an unrestricted whole-game strategy can continue beyond the opening.
- A named formation requires a supported pattern match; an opening can still be modelled when it has no established name.
- A proposed continuation must account for remote stones and alternative areas of play, rather than relying solely on a locally satisfactory result.
- The subject concerns stones and strategic development in Go, rather than a software service sharing the name.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Relay opening advice to a player during a game where outside help is forbidden.
- Present a single engine line as the only correct opening.
- Misattribute an opening or game record to a player who did not play it.
Only with a human decision
- Ruling on suspected cheating in a competition.
May
- Explain fuseki principles and well-known openings to learners.
- Record and analyse opening moves of games with the players' consent.
Moral aspects Filled
- Fair play in Go depends on players choosing their own moves.
- Go openings carry a long cultural tradition in East Asia that deserves accurate credit.
Who is affected
- Players
- Organizers and referees
- Go teachers
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the concept; each player answers for their own opening.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q19368429 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.fuseki
- Wikidata: Q1471749 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1471749)
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Referent form: opening phase | concrete position | move sequence | named pattern | strategic prescription
- Game conditions: Linked board dimensions, ruleset, komi in points, handicap setup and player to move
- Opening position and history: Board coordinates, stone colours, initial setup and ordered moves linked to a game record
- Opening progress: opening development | transition disputed | middlegame underway; with justification
- Pattern correspondence: exact under stated symmetry | attributed variant | partial resemblance | unnamed | uncertain
- Strategic role of a placement: territory-oriented | influence-oriented | enclosure | approach | extension | invasion | reduction | mixed; with position-specific explanation
- Local response obligation: response assessed as urgent | playing elsewhere assessed as viable | unresolved; with supporting variations
- Continuation assessment: Estimated score in points or win probability in percent, with perspective, evaluator, settings and uncertainty
Plane XCT: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Filled
- The first stones of a game spread across the board, often on the corners and sides.
- Few or no stones yet captured and few close fights.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Reconstruct an opening instance from a game record and identify missing context.
- Compare a position with documented opening patterns under explicitly allowed board symmetries.
- Explain how a corner choice supports or conflicts with stones elsewhere.
- Propose candidate opening moves and examine plausible opponent replies.
- Assess whether to answer locally or play elsewhere using concrete continuation branches.
- Revise an opening recommendation when game conditions, analytical evidence or the position change.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Following memorized opening sequences without considering the actual board can produce weak groups or inefficient positions.
- Applying analysis under the wrong rules or handicap assumptions can lead to misleading evaluations.
- Using automated opening advice during a competition that prohibits assistance can violate fair play requirements.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- The Japanese Rules of Go, issued jointly by the Nihon Ki-in and Kansai Ki-in, govern legal play and scoring in games conducted under those rules, including their openings.
Context of use required Filled
- Fuseki is studied and played during the opening phase of Go to coordinate early positions across the board.
- Players and game analysis agents use it to compare territorial prospects, influence and the relationship between local moves and overall strategy.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q1471749: fuseki - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia: Fuseki - general description of the item
Open questions
- Does the originating registry record confirm Go fuseki as the intended referent?
- Which authoritative usages distinguish fuseki as a phase, a named formation and whole-board opening strategy, and where do their boundaries differ?
- Which criteria should identify the transition out of fuseki when local fighting begins while substantial opening development remains?
- How should pattern recognition handle transpositions, opponent deviations and board symmetries without erasing strategically meaningful differences?
- Which opening prescriptions remain supported across board sizes, handicap conditions, komi values and different human or engine evaluation methods?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q1471749/spec.json