OGS Joseki Dictionary Charter

As we start to discuss “how should things be done” with the potential “OGS Joseki Dictionary”, I’ve realised that these discussions and decisions need to be based on the right sense of “what are we trying to achieve”.

So here’s a draft “Charter” that ought to guide decisions and discussions.

The goal of the OGS Joseki Dictionary is to provide a well curated catalog of corner sequences of play that are credibly established to be among the best that you can do for the local situation (“joseki”), and mistakes, refutations associated with those.

This should mean that if you play one of these joseki moves, and your opponent does not chose one from the sequence, then all other things being equal you would be better off.

The intended uses for the catalog are:

  • Exploring known and established joseki
    • Filtering out ones of less interest, by source, contributor and outcome
  • Learning known and established joseki
    • Ability to “play through” good sequences repeatedly, and at random
    • Ability to play through mistake responses, to learn refutations
  • Discussing the positions
    • In-situ and “offline” (here in the forum)
    • With contributors and known players

One thing I immediately note is that the decision about whether a sequence “gets into” this “well curated catalog” is itself a value judgement. We will be relying on good players to help us with this judgement. And that judgement is in some ways “the whole point” - the joseki dictionary is a catalog of such judgements.

Another thing to emphasise is that it is a “given” that “whether a sequence is among the best” is dependent on board situation. This is “understood”. It means we allow for a move to be “joseki if you have the opposite corner” types of situation.

As always, input/feedback/discussion welcome.


Thanks for drafting this. It seems like a necessary first step.

You describe the goal of the OGS Joseki Dictionary as follows:

This purpose excludes mistakes. There was significant interest in the other thread for including mistakes. I also think the JD’s value as a reference work will increase if it contains commentary on mistakes, similar to josekipedia. I’m pretty certain that’s what you intended here, too, since you included a mistake tag. The phrase “that type of situation” is also kind of vague. So I’d rephrase as follows:

1 Like

Thanks, I updated to address these two.


Plus + ‘Refutations’ or ‘Refutation variations’. It’s important to know how to punish joseki mistakes. Especially where a mistake is common or used to be considered good.

Joseki is my weakest point atm so if you can do a good job with this Joseki Dictionary I might actually become a dangerous player! :smiley:


2 posts were merged into an existing topic: OGS Joseki Dictionary is in beta