Talk:Reversi/Archive 2

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2

Copyright query

{{Cv-unsure|url=|date=January 2002}} Moonriddengirl (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonriddengirl (talkcontribs) 12:48, 1 July 2009‎ (UTC)


It seems as though most of the strategy section is copied, with very minor changes, from

That isn't plagarism - that's copyright violation, which is far more serious. I suggest that you or someone else (sorry, I don't have time) post at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; hopefully an experienced editor there can deal with this promptly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Posted per your suggestion - superβεεcat  23:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the concern. I suspect there may be a violation here, but have not been able to verify that. The first use of this text in our article predates the oldest archived version of that website by more than two years (which accords with their copyright date of 2004-11-10), which suggests they copied from us (or the same location we did). I've tagged concerns above in case somebody can identify a definitive source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Going ahead with a major rewrite

I have tournament experience going back to the early 1980s, and I can eliminate any copyright concerns and otherwise improve this article. One point I plan to make at the end is that the conclusion given on perfect play is somewhat unsound on theoretical grounds, both related to endgame strategy and to the way a proof of this sort of result needs to be carried out. There is also an earlier reference than the NY Times mention, and so on. I won't be able to write the definitive article, as I have not continued with tournament play, but I can bring it reasonably up to par.Julzes (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you're the one that added all the original research advising people on strategy and promptly forgetting the purpose of Wikipedia then. I see. This article should document what the strategic terms mean and/or how they've affected the history of the game. NOT tell people how to best use them. FFS. That involved a lot more thinking than normal to wipe all of that shit you laid on the article. I'm afraid I may not have done very well. I still think it sounds a lot like it's giving out strategic advice. Repku (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits.Julzes (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Now, I just made one edit, replacing the final sentence of endgames.Julzes (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows Reversi

Does the little game included with old versions of Windows have its own article? I'm sure most people think of that when they hear of "Reversi". Is there a list of commercial Reversi/Othello video games anywhere? 2fort5r (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Othello

I'm pretty sure that the name Othello is far more commonly known than Reversi. All but one of the cited sources (the one from 1895) use the name Othello, as do most of the external links. The largest organization devoted to the game is the World Othello Championship. This article, and others linked to it, all consistently use the name Othello. As far as I can tell, all modern versions available for sale anywhere also use the Othello and not Reversi. A comparative Google search is a bit tricky because the Shakespeare play brings up too many false positives, but even when you use the - operator to rule out any results with "Shakespeare", "theater", "movie", "actor", etc. (can't rule out "play", because that applies to both), you still get more hits than with Reversi, and most of the Reversi hits also mention the name Othello in the first sentence in the search results. (Try also searching for Reversi -Othello to rule out those which use both names, and it cuts down the results by about a third.) Reversi might be the older of the two names, but Othello seems far more widely known. (It's also worth nothing that my browser's spell-checker knows Othello and not Reversi, but that might be thanks to the Bard again - it also knows most other Shakespeare characters I can think of off-hand.) Lurlock (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to do a sound complete article. There is an enormous amount on chess. I think I'll look into just how much this should be changed and give an eye also to some other games. The country in which the game has been most popular has been Japan, generally, since its re-incarnation. I'd say it has some significance. I'm leaning toward Reversi/Othello, and that change could be reasonably started by anyone. I have not been involved myself in decades aside from a brief appearance at a national tournament.Julzes (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Major Expansion To Occur In A Reasonable Time-Frame

I'm not going to make this game my life again, but I'll flesh out all the necessary improvements. It's going to help with wikipedia's image a bit to get this one and other games more on a par with their significances.Julzes (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved back to previous title. This reverses a recent move. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding slashes in article titles. Redirects remain. Station1 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversi/OthelloReversi — I believe this should be moved back to the original Reversi title, as that is the name of the game as it was created in the 19th century. Othello is a trademarked version of Reversi, and shouldn't be showing up in the article title, even if it may be the most common name the game is known by. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems wrong to have a forward slash in the title as it makes it look like an extra like an extra folder. There is always going to be an issue as to what to call this page. The problem is not just to do with familiarity with the name but that the game is played competitively under the name othello. Clearly a redirect is going to be needed for at least one page. I would prefer to see a page called Othello due to competitions and computer programs.Tetron76 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Despite the above I do think that the page is better as Reversi than as Reversi/Othello and the Othello (Game) would not be the primary Othello page. A choice is better than a compromise in this instance.Tetron76 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there will probably eventually be a subpage that will have the game called Othello this should be factored into people's decisions.Tetron76 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Anything but the current chimaera of a title. No more "Football (soccer)"s... (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Part of the rationale for the choice is that the game has a significant history attached to the specific brand name. The world championship series is th 'Othello world championship', for instance, not the 'Reversi world championship'. It's also necessary to distinguish between the rule-sets of the two games in any complete article. These are the reversi rules that differ: 1) The players alternate placing the first four discs, resulting in an alternative center starting position when flipping discs commences; and 2) Each player has a total of 32 disks to place, and if one player runs out he/she is done and the opponent can then make repeated moves. The use of a brand name is not a real reason for supporting the change either, so long as it doesn't amount to an advertisement. The idea is to write a complete article at some point, though at present I lack the time. A more complete article will deal with a good deal more of the history, not particularly more about the proper way to play the game. For all intents and purposes, the game may be called what you like and a redirect is all that really is necessary; I just feel that it's more accurate to have the name split as it is. (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Reversi is a good topic of its own, and a far more important topic than any one of the many board or software implemetations of it (or of variations of it), however notable. (I once had to write one of them as a university assignment, and over a hundred of us passed that course, and how many such courses have there been worldwide?) The Othello game probably deserves an article of its own as well as a section in this article. The current name is a horse put together by a committee. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The title should assume the simplest name possible, and certainly not a non-standard one. Othello is a trademarked name, and it isn't even the most common use of the name! Of all the possible titles [Reversi, Reversi/Othello, Reversi (Othello) Othello (Reversi) Othello (game)] it is apparent that the best title is Reversi. And, tangentially, this article should use Reversi as a constant term, and should be achieved without a splinter page using Othello. We don't have AmE or BrE subpages of articles using different spellings, nor do we (or should we) have subpages using different terms. En-AU Speaker (T) (C) (E) 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Game ends with open spaces

Just lost to the computer - and badly I might ad lol - but could not start a new game cause the computer and I kept passing to each other. 2 squares open and no moves left. Perhaps you can put a finite # of passes at the end - so as to end the loop. :) This is one of my favorite games. D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with the Shakespeare play

The reference given as evidence of the claims made in the second paragraph of the Origins section does not justify most of those claims. The reference states that the father of the Japanese man who invented Othello noted only that the appeal of the game is based on a number of dramatic reversals. Suggest deleting the following:

"referencing the conflict between the Moor Othello and Iago, who describes himself as "two faced" and more controversially, to the unfolding drama between Othello, who is black, and Desdemona, who is white. The green colour of the board is inspired by the image of the general Othello, valiantly leading his battle in a green field. It can also be likened to a jealousy competition (jealousy being the central theme in Shakespeare's play), since players engulf the pieces of the opponent, thereby turning them to their possession" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A Couple of Things

There appears to be some newer historical material about the initial dispute on the game on the web, so it seems sensible that if anybody wants to enhance that particular part of the article s/he should. Will get to it myself reasonably soon. Question on the unfilled-board game (No time to look up immediately). Want to say that unfilled boards that are not full wipeouts are scored based upon exact number of disks for each player. The caption records that the particular game was scored differently, however. Is this accurate? Will also be looking into this relatively soon; but if anyone wants to simply expand with an explanatory sentence here (so I can edit it in responsibly) or in the article itself, that would be appreciated.Julzes (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Scoring a game when the board is not completely filled is often country specific. I'm only considering on-the-board tournament play. In most countries the player with the most number of disks on the board gets the empty squares. The only country where - I know - the counting happens differently is Japan. There (not always) the empty squares are divided between the two players. In that way the Vlasáková - Schotte game would have been scored 3,5 - 60,5. As this particular game was played in an European Grand Prix tournament and in those tournaments 'winner gets the remaining squares' is applied, the real score in the game was 1 - 63. 14:31, 13 April 2012 (ECT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Problems with the first paragraph.

I know nothing about Reversi. I wanted to know what it is, briefly, and the first paragraph of an article should give me that information. This one does not. I find it quickly goes into too much detail, with extraneous information and doesn't give the reader a basic understanding of the game. It even includes some controversies and issues only tangentially related to the game. I think the writer should imagine that the reader, like myself, knows nothing about the game, and consider how it can be briefly described in a few sentences. The rest of the article can go into more detail. Chellspecker (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming of a tie / draw

In the article following text is currently in place: "Games in which both players have the same number of disks their color at the end (almost always with a full-board 32-32 score) are not very common, but also not rare, and these are designated as 'ties' and scored as half of a win for each player in tournaments. The term 'draw' (from chess) for such may also be heard, but is somewhat frowned upon."

In my almost ten year carreer as an active on-the-board Othello player, both in native English as in non-native English speaking countries, I barely heard the terminology "tie". Most players use the terminology "draw". So I don't agree that the term 'draw' is somewhat frowned upon. I consider this statement as "somewhat" subjective.

August 21st, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversi Trademark

The article states Typically computer versions start as per Othello, but the name Othello (along with certain meaningless features of board design) is trademarked so that use of the name Reversi is necessary to avoid legal problems.

Ravensburger AG, a major German game editor claims the ownership of the Reversi trademark in Europe, specifically in those countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.

Ravensburger requests applications from the Apple Store using the name Reversi to be removed from sale in the specified countries, or the applications to be renamed.

Here is an extract of the mail i received from Apple Store administrators:

We received a notice from Ravensburger AG ("Ravensburger") that Ravensburger believes your app (listed below) infringes Ravensburger's trademark rights to the term, REVERSI, in certain territories identified later in this email.
...To ensure that you are not infringing Ravensburger's rights, please either rename or remove your app from these territories; or provide us with confirmation and supporting evidence that your app does not infringe. You can reach Ravensburger by email (cc'ed on this message).

Migut (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That is very interesting; am curious to see how this works out. (Could Ravensburger, e.g., claim trademark rights to "Pachisi" too, if they wanted? Or "Halma"? And if not, why not? Or how about the name "Checkers"? What is the difference?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the article states the game was popular in England under name reversi, then in 1893 Ravensburger first marketed it. Is that the basis of their claim to trademark right? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I presume they registered the Reversi as a trademark. This is why they sometimes append the sign ® to the name of this game. I know they also claim ownership of "Memory". I don't know for others. Migut (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.ΛΧΣ21 03:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ReversiOthello – Surprised no one tried this. Doesn't seem right to have this article at a title that is unused by competitive organizations, has very little to do with the modern game (see also Mastermind (board game), Chinese checkers, and many others) outside of getting around the trademark, and even draws less hits in Google ('reversi' vs 'othello game' gets me 3M vs 5M). This is not a marketing ploy or some kind of nationalism (it's obvious that Japan didn't invent the game); the game that the article talks about started in the 1970s, with an ancestor that only matters when it comes to history, and suing people through German law. There's certainly nothing wrong with mentioning the name "reversi" as a valid alternative, but it is the alternative where "Othello" is the main. Despatche (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose on account of the fact that Othello is kinda taken. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Othello is a stageplay. Deleting it to replace it with this board game is wrong. -- (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Shakespeare's play should remain the primary topic of "Othello" on grounds of long-term significance, especially when you consider, as stated in Reversi#History, that the new alternative name for the game was selected as a reference to the play. The current "Reversi" title is a sufficient natural disambiguation, especially since the article currently combines the descriptions, rules, strategies and so forth of both the original Reversi game and the post-1970s Othello game. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest changing the proposal to Othello (game). I doubt you meant to supplant a better-known Shakespeare play. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Return to "Reversi/Archive 2" page.