OGS Joseki Dictionary is in beta


  • A well-curated joseki collection
    • Good control and visibility of who is contributing
    • Content filterable by contributor (and other ways)
  • Ability to do “joseki training”, to learn sequences of joseki, a-la-Josekifarm

Beta test for this feature is at the OGS joseki dictionary beta .

In theory the main features are:

  • Explore (the default). Just like Josekipedia.

    • With filterability, so you can look at
      • “joseki from one person” (eg Mark5000 :slight_smile: ) or
      • “joseki from one source” (eg Dwyrin) or
      • “just look at fuseki”
  • Play. Like Josekifarm, but without the pineapples.

    • This won’t be really interesting till there are more joseki sequences in there
    • But thanks to Mark5000 there’s a reasonable selection to try
  • Save/Edit. Use this to add new sequences or edit exiting descriptions.

    • Permissions for doing this will be controlled - policy for this TBD

As well as the joseki filter, there is chat/discussion on each page, and an audit log, each hidden under very small icons on the right :slight_smile:

To comment (and edit) you need an account on the “beta” OGS server.

PM me for permissions to edit/admin joseki.
(tell me your beta account name, and what your goal for editing is)

Please report bugs, request features, discuss here…


Short term features.

Currently “definitely being worked on”:

  • Make the default “variation label” to be next in the sequence for any addition done, in next release
  • Be able to mark positions done, in next release
  • Pass/tenuki in joseki sequence done, in next release
  • Backup and restore
    • Must have before “go live”
  • Add a throbber
    • For next move loading after click done, in next release
    • For chat/audit loading done, in next release
  • Outcome summations (see @smurph 's post) done, in next release
  • Make the way “play” works less ugly
    • At the very least, indicate who played each move
    • Ideally, it should feel slick and gamey like Josekifarm
      • But how? Ideas, anyone?

Should have. Just a question of “how” and “how much effort”:

  • Rotate/flip board
  • Accept transpositions (notably in Play mode)
  • Flip colours
    • Note that this has to flip the words black and white in the description as well
  • Translation

Probably should have:

  • Keyboard arrow shortcuts
  • Email notification of comment updates
  • Email notification of page changes? (“watch” a position?)

Good to see someone finally acknowledging that Dwyrin isn’t really a person. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Ah - I should have said “contributor” rather than “person” of course.

To be really clear (I know you know, but just for the record):

  • the contributor is the person who entered the joseki into the dictionary (surely is a person!)
  • the “source” is where it can be validated that this really is joseki (typically book or internet source - could sound like a person, as in “Dwyrin’s channel”)


Do you actually require links for the source? Because I’d argue that if someone just says “Source: Josh Allen”, that’s an attribution, not a source. Sources should be checkable by others.


This is a topic that I’ve pondered and think deserves discussion: to require or not to require a link in the source field?

Right now it doesn’t require it, but I nearly did make it compulsory.

Suppose that a source is a book - do all books have a link? This was not clear to me as I was putting this together.

There is a related topic to deliberate…

There are also two levels of source reference: the “source itself” and the “pointer into where within the source”.

For manageability, I envision that a “source” is a “high level thing” like a “book” or a “site”.

Therefore, “Dwyrin” (as in https://www.patreon.com/dwyrin) is a “source”. And you can filter by “source” like “show me all the content from Dwyrin” or “show me all the content from Sneaky Tesuji”.

A given position has a reference within the source, at least potentially - the URL or page number.

At the moment I envisage this being free-form in the description, like this: a move from Mark’s joseki collection or this a Dywrin video with the move

(noting that the second one is more a joke, and an example, than a serious entry into the dictionary, in case my sense of humour doesn’t translate)

I haven’t found a way to tenuki. It’s needed to get the jeseki for Screenshot_20190626-094134__01


Good one, thanks! I’ll put that at the top of the list!

1 Like

Could save yourself a lot of time and trouble by just embedding waltheri :wink:

I assume that was a joke but I still disagree :smiley:

I am super looking forward to some modern and commented dictionary. Being the most popular game in the world, it still feels like we are missing a lot of modern tools that should be there .

Minor bug:

When I edit and save a description the “follow-up” A, B, C, marks disappear. It is not a big problem, but makes it a bit less convenient to edit sequences.
Actually, when I then play the correct follow-up move it seems not to load at all. I guess it might cause some problems.
already fixed

Feature ideas

It might also be nice to be able to mark stones, like in a review. Even severly reduced options like cross only might help to convey the idea to less experienced players.

Could we also have keyboard arrow shortucts? I don’t know about going forward, but maybe at least going back :slight_smile:


How should a pass appear visually in the position description?


^^ I guess that is tenable?

Tentatively tenable.

As for the source vs attribution… I still say ‘source’ should be checkable, so basically we’d treat them the same as references. Maybe someone made an error transcribing them, maybe there was an error already present and the referenced material has been updated,… it would be nice to have.

1 Like

Published books can be uniquely referenced by ISBN at least, and there are at least various sites for looking up book details for ISBNs.

1 Like

So the question is dangling out there… should “sources” be required to have “something”… and how strict should that “something” be? A URL? A URL or an ISBN?

Note that in the current “model” of OGS Joseki Dictionary, contributors are “known and approved” so they can be expected to follow policy sensibly, lessening the need for strict program checks on these things.

This raises also the broader question of what the policies will be as well. For example, I was already asked “what’s the difference between ‘Ideal’ and ‘Good’?”. That one probably deserves it’s own thead :slight_smile:

1 Like

I like that we’ll be able to see changes made. See how it’ll evolve.

It’ll be a lot of work to fill everything out before it matches something like josekipedia. And very few high-level people really understand joseki.

It would be nice to have keywords linked to the final positions of a sequence and to have an automatically updating summary of those keywords for the first (root) move in the sequence.

Say you want to play a certain move and the dictionary gave you a preview of all recorded outcomes, for example:


  • average number of moves per sequence (15)
  • even position (40%)
  • good sequence (30%)
  • black gets right side (25%)
  • black gets top (20%)
  • black gets outside (50%)
  • white got tricked (5%)

I reckon that would be way more helpful than any “winrate” estimations.


I am not sure I would require url or ISBN. Sometimes the source is not clearly referanceable, but still the position should be mentioned. Wrong or “mistake” moves would be even harder to reference, but are good to be able to show them to new players.

AIs are also hard to reference exactly, but everyone is now copying their “josekis”…

I would just trust the selected users to reference the source “reasonably”. Otherwise we will just have nonsensical URL that do not lead anywhere, just because the variation could not be submitted without.

1 Like

There was a middle line I had considered which was that if you wanted an official “source” attached to the position then you had to supply the URL. That would not rule out variations without sources - they could still happen.

But even so, I tend to think that authors can be relied upon to do a reasonable job without being “forced” :slight_smile:

1 Like

This is awesome!


Including a source would be nice. For example, it would provide a place to start if you are interested in the nuances of the position. Just claiming “a Nick Sibicky video” is worthless and would make it nearly impossible to find it in the hundreds of hours of content. This could easily be handled by providing a citation and URL if possible. This information could allow at least one other person to validate the source and claim as well.

Bad source formatting.

Nick Sibicky

38 Basic Josekis

Good source formatting

Early AI preferred joseki, Nick Sibicky Go Lecture #328 - NEW vs OLD 3-3,12:00

K11 The Elementary Go Series Volume Two: 38 Basic Josekis, page 36
K11 The Elementary Go Series Volume Two: 38 Basic Josekis, Ch. 2

I don’t think it has to be perfectly standardized formatting, but including a reference source is really useful. To me, this is one of the shortcomings of Josekipedia which is a bit messy. I have the beginnings of a personal joseki dictionary referenced like this since there is not one out there.