Talk:Shogi/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Shogi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stalemate

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What is the ruling if a player is stalemated? (Admittedly this is a nonexistent phenomenon in real games, but it can be accomplished if both sides perversely cooperate to achieve that goal.) The GNU shogi manual says that stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player, but is this covered under any official rules? Double sharp (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen anything specific about stalement in any Japanese books about shogi. This probably because it's not considered a legitimate game outcome. It may be theoretically possible to create/reach such a position, but it's almost certain to never occur during standard play. In chess, stalement results in a draw (.5 point) so there's actually a reason to playing for it, which is why you sometimes see "super rook" type endings. In shogi, there are really no draws so playing on in a hopeless position hoping that your opponent gives you the game (even playing for a win on time) when the result is obvious per normal play is not really done (at least not by Japanese players); most players would've have resigned or been mated long before such a position could occur. Moreover, the stalematee would have to have no pieces in hand and most players would resign long before such a thing happened. Illegal moves and forbidden moves result in an immediate loss so the stalemater has no incentive to screw around as well, and would almost certainly mate the other player before reaching such a position. If by chance such a position did happen, then the stalematee would not be able to make a legal move, so by default they would lose. Whether they simply let their clock run out or resign, the end result would be the same: a loss. All of this relates to official games according to generally accepted rules in Japan. I guess overseas organizations/websites could tweak their rules to allow such a thing, but it would seem improper to a Japanese player. Most Japanese beginners are taught that the way you play is in some way more important than the actual outcome, so you rarely find someone trying to play on in a hopeless position or play the clock for a win. Not saying it never happens, but it's quite rare in OTB play and usually is only something you see online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this information! Hmm, it's rather as I expected: things not covered in the rules will presumably be sorted out at the board if they happen. Fine for practicality, but perhaps not fine for people who obsess over rule minutiae (and I admittedly am one of those). I suppose that for definiteness we can therefore declare it simply a loss for the stalemated player in shogi, should both players decide to mess around despite having no incentive to (except perhaps to see what the ruling would be). Double sharp (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "messing around" would be something any serious player, Japanese or Western, would even consider doing which is why such a thing is not specifically mentioned in the rules. Perhaps the feeling is that there no need for a rule for something so obviously wrong. Stalement in this case seems to be a case of chess players trying to find similarities between the two games based upon what they know about chess, but the rules of shogi weren't written in a chess context. If things went as far as stalemate, it would probably be seen as no longer being a game of shogi and more like a game of players making things up as they go along. As for a specific ruling, each player is required to make a legal move when it's their turn, if you can only make illegal moves, then you either resign or let your clock run out and lose anyway. There are no passes or take backs, so I think that's how it would possibly be handled by a TD if it ever came up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so it seems that the rule is basically "move or lose". The game doesn't end until you resign or the time runs out, so if you can't move (whether it's checkmate or stalemate), you just politely resign instead of sitting there until your time runs out. (BTW, while I don't think anyone would consider doing something like this in a real game, I think Western players at least may see it as a valid construction task, i.e. "construct a series of legal moves from the initial position that ends in stalemate". There are already construction tasks in chess asking for such outlandish things as 54 consecutive checks, or moves determining all the previous moves like 6.gxf8=N# or 7.Ka3#, so this would not be too strange.) Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of shogi

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Compared to An Introduction to Shogi for Chess Players this article makes it very hard to extract the rules of shogi. The exclusive use of kanji is perhaps the biggest problem. I understand the need to preserve the authentic character of the game, but a side-by-side use of both kanji and chess(-like) symbols and boards would perhaps greatly increase the clarity of this article. MarSch (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your suggestion would be an improvement. I think the notation used in the article reflects the style used in most English books and websites on shogi that I have seen. The kanji obstacle probably mattered more twenty or so years ago, but now kanji is pretty much incorporated into most English books and website on shogi out there these days and this article reflects that. Moreover, the article is not really intended to be a guide on how to play shogi and is written for anyone who may be interested in shogi (for whatever reason), not just chess players. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(How to play unfortunately is a very ambiguous phrasing, so forgive me if I take that to mean how to play well in error.) That link's essential sentence is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.". I understand that to mean that the explanation of how the pieces move and what the other rules of the game are is within scope. I think the current article reflects that. I just do not think it does a very good job of explaining the rules in the most accessable way. I do not think only chess players would benefit from my suggestion; I think all people who do not have Chinese or Japanese as their native language would benefit, especially people who do not yet know chess. If you already know chess then the movements are pretty easy to learn, but in this article the starting setup is only in kanji and perhaps in words. If you do not already know chess, then this article will be even more inscrutable I imagine. The pictograms used to represent chess pieces are just so much clearer and harder to confuse with one another. Surely you can see the benefit of a hybrid approach? MarSch (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to such an approach at all. It seems you are suggesting that replacing the kanji (pictograms) being used with a different set of pictograms (images of chess pieces) is somehow going to make it easier to understand the article, even for people who know nothing about chess or shogi. Such a person might be just as confused by seeing File:Chess plt45.svg as they would be by seeing File:Shogi fuhyo.png. Moreover, the differences in chess piece pictograms might seem clear to someone such as yourself (perhaps you are a chess player), but that might not necessarily be the case for someone else. Why try and create new symbols for pieces when you can use already use the ones used by most English shogi books and websites and complement the images with text explaining how each piece moves? Most beginner English shogi books do not try and teach a player to read Japanese; they simply show the pieces, explain how they move and give their English and Japanese names much like is done in this article. I could see using the style your proposing if it's usage was widespread in shogi publishing or on shogi websites, but it just seems to be just limited to that particular website: a website which looks to me to be written by a chessplayer specifically for other chessplayers.

If an alternative version of the board setup is needed, then it seems that a more acceptable approach would be use something similar to algebraic notation, where K=king , G=gold, S=silver, N=knight, L=lance, P=pawn, R=rook, and B=bishop. This is a style often used in shogi games annotated in English and would make more sense (at least in my opinion) than what you are proposing. Perhaps there are other editors who feel differently, but I do not see how doing that is an improvement any more than using alternative pictograms would be for chess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the initial-letter solution, but we have to remember that we are describing the game as it is, not as one wishes it should be, even be it for the supposed benefit of people who cannot read kanji. Anyway, it is not as if it's that hard to remember the limited number of characters used in shogi – this isn't chu shogi. (And even then, I don't think letters should be used because that's not how the vast majority of the few players would play it.) I do not think there is any standard set of pictograms for shogi, mostly because figurine pieces make the drop rule so difficult to employ and promotion doubles the number of figurines needed. Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think its relevant to note that article xianqi uses a hybrid approach similar to what I think is MarSch's suggestion. (But I'm not sure it doesn't just make that article more confusing.) IHTS (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that game, but it seems at little odd to me and possibly original research unless those images are commonly used in English books or websites about the game. It also seems that the western piece images are used only in the descriptions of the pieces and not in any board diagrams.

Anyway, I think Double sharp brings up a good point about chu shogi and about describing the game as it "is". It seems that the primary reason for wanting to use a "hybrid approach" is to make the article easier to understand for those unfamiliar with kanji. The first paragraph of the Crockford website cited above seems to basically say that kanji pieces are too difficult for the average Western chess player to understand so let's make them look more like chess pieces to help increase shogi's popularity outside of Japan. I think that's fine for somebody's personal website, but not sure how well that transfers to Wikipedia since the article is not intended to be a promotion piece for shogi anymore than it is intended to be an instruction manual on how to play the game.

If, however, the consensus is to do something like this, then I thing there are some practical issues to consider. We would basically need to come up with new images for the silver and lance since those are the two pieces on the Crockford website which do not use traditional chess images; I'm not sure if we can use his or any derivative of them since the content on his website might be protected by copyright and there's no way to justify non-free use for something such as this. So, we would have to agree on and create two new images which of course would be basically our own original research and something that could be challenged as such by someone else at a later date. There are examples of western/international/instructional style shogi sets such as shown here, here or here and sets designed specifically for kids like shown here. Kurnik even has (or used to have) a western-style setup for online play. We have to be a bit careful though because these "alternative versions" were created to make money, and we just can assume that similar imagery can be automatically used on Wikipedia. That's why it seems much simpler to me to use the images already on Commons and which seem to be the style used in almost all books and websites related to shogi, regardless of whether they are in English or another language. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a board diagram seems to be missing, which I think is essential, since it provides the link between the piece descriptions and where they start on the board. MarSch (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the Shogi for kids! Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I am not set using symbols with a strong connection to western chess, letters from the Roman alphabet would be a huge improvement already. There are also symbols that are mnemonic for the movement of the pieces as you can see here. But perhaps a good to do first would be to expand on what little the article says about using westernized equipment and showing a number of different options for that? MarSch (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of combining as is done in the xiangqi article, but the idea of including a section devoted to attempts to Westernize pieces seems a good one (and also notable, methinks). A board w/ Westernized pieces is best located (only) in said section, IMO. IHTS (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the article in such a direction is certainly something worth discussing in my opinion as well, but it might be tricky to find Reliabke sourceto support such a thing. We just can't list a bunch of personal website where such a thing is done because these are WP:UGC and most likely just WP:OR unless they have received coverage in reliable secondary sources. I'll look for something official from the Japan Shogi Association and some Japanese newspapers. The JSA is making attempts to increase the popularity of the game outside of Japan and stuff like that may be able to be incorporated into such a section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest making .pngs that are super redundant. Have the character, the abbreviation (K, G, S, L, etc.), and the schematic movement directions on the border edge of the .png (like some international pieces have).

As for the western chess style piece shapes, there's no standardized convention for silver, lance, and gold modified chess pieces. Using various ad hoc pieces for these doesn't seem so useful. (Personally, although I dont remember these very well, they often weren't very easily distinguishable from normal chess pieces, which kinda defeated the purpose of going this route.)

On 'original research', I'd hardly call this 'research'. The issue is just how to display the information and how accommodating to readers you want to be. Because it originated in Japan, it uses characters. But, one can perfectly explain the game using any arbitrary collection of symbols. I'm not recommending doing this, just making the obvious point. If wikipedia uses some unique convention to explain the game, that's entirely justifiable if that's the best way to convey information. It's better, of course, to use known conventions. This is, I admit, perhaps there could be considered a somewhat pedagogical point of view, but the boundary between pedagogy and encyclopedic explanation for a subject that isn't very familiar with a given audience (with a slightly related subject that is more well known) is not so well defined.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. I dont have a bone to pick here, I can read Japanese just fine. But, the question you need to ask as editors is to what extent do you want force readers to come up to the higher level and to what extent do you want to bring the article down to the level of readers. – ishwar (speak) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Japanese notation for dropped pieces

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The article mentions the asterisk convention for dropped pieces in western notation, but it doesn't mention what the Japanese notation equivalent is. (One puts 打 at the end of the notation string for dropped pieces.)

(Also, Japanese notation on websites often includes black and white triangles to indicate whose owns the piece in question. This is not mentioned in the notation section, either.) – ishwar (speak) 1 January 2016

so, i added stuff about this. but via example and not with prose. (hopefully no typos!) there's some other things though: (a) when pieces don't promote even though they are allowed to, and (b) when the same piece types (like silver, gold, etc.) can move to the same point the notation is ambiguous so ambiguity resolution is needed (western indicates start position, japanese uses 'left' or 'right'). peace – ishwar (speak) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

well, i've done this myself. (maybe went overboard?) Now one should be able to read Japanese notation and understand it. So, nevermind – ishwar (speak) 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

shogi notation on wikipedia

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

How do you feel about the western shogi notation used on wikipedia?

The site first used the (second) Hodges–Townhill notation which uses letters for the rank as in:

Bx2b

And, i've followed that since, which also gives respect to all of Hodges's work. However, i've always been annoyed by it. And, i've wondered if the first wikipedia shogi editors simply didn't know about other options. The letters originally gave a nod to chess players, but there's no reason the non-Japanese shogi community needs to continue to give chess players that nod, in my opinion. Using numbers for both the file and rank – as in

Bx22

– seems preferable as it more closely follows the Japanese notation. And, that's what Hosking's excellent book uses as well as the new Kitao–Kawasaki notation used by the Nekomado publishing house (which is otherwise not preferred for non-Japanese readers since it can't be written by the nonliterate on paper).

Anyway, i'm in favor of using the Hosking western notation with only numbers on wikipedia. Since there's no shogi editor central discussion place, i'm asking here about it.

Below are some notes about usage:

everybody associated with Hodges used the letters including his Shogi magazine, the various publications with Fairbairn as translator (including his books and the two bilingual books by Aono)
Hosking uses numbers
Japanese literature (in Japanese language) uses numbers always (unless it's ancient)
some (usually java?) kifu readers embedded on websites use letters for western notation mode
some shogi software made by westerners use letters (e.g. MacShôgi)
some software made by Japanese folks uses letters (e.g. Shogidokoro in English mode)
some software made by Japanese folks uses numbers (e.g. Shogi Droid app's 'universal' notation option)
Kitao–Kawasaki uses numbers
81Dojo uses numbers for a strange sort of translated western notation (much like the Kitao–Kawasaki notation)
81Dojo uses letters for it's so-called 'chess' notation

Pros for letters:

widely used by non-Japanese
clear distinction between file and rank
somewhat like the familiar chess notation – backwardized? (but who cares & doesnt it just make it more confusing to a chess player anyway?)
nod to Hodges

Pros for numbers:

well-known (but probably less so than letters?)
matches Japanese conventions (which makes it easier to process mentally when converting between Japanese & western)
nod to Hosking
less confusing to chess players (?)

For me, the most compelling argument in favor of using letters is that we give a nod to Hodges. But, i'm kind of tired of doing this conversion in my head and, ultimately, i think it's an inferior option.

What says you folks?

– ishwar (speak) 01:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a chess player, I find the Hodges-style notation to be incredibly confusing, because our association of letters with files and numbers with ranks is alas far too deeply ingrained for our own good! I would prefer to follow the Japanese notation, as it makes the differences abundantly clear (and it would stop confusing the heck out of us ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. So, similar to me. I find chess notation annoying because it's like shogi notation but everything is backwards and in the wrong place. I dont know what Hodges was thinking. Well, it's 2 votes so far. – ishwar (speak) 04:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, everything is converted now to the number-number coordinate system. Any objecting majority can feel free to change back if they want, but as I add more & more info it will become a bigger task.

I retained Hodges's hyphen for noncapturing-nondropping moves even though it's not used by Hosking. Although different, the mixed Nekomado notation also uses hyphens. – ishwar (speak) 19:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My advice (I know both chess and shogi) : as I said elsewhere, I prefer letters, it's clearer... And it's widely used in books and websites about shogi (by Japanese people).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.242.20.58 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem of notation in all (very interesting) Wikipedia shogi articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

In the standard international notation, used for instance in "Shogi Yearbook" (Google easily provides you an example in PDF of this book), the board is spotted by numbers on columns and letters, not numbers, in lines. For instance, P7H in the first move opens the diagonal for bishop.

This standard is followed by Wikipedians only in the first diagram of the "Shogi" page, and widely misused elsewhere... I know it's the fault of translations from Japanese, but it may be worth correct it - it would help shogi beginners to understand better the game.

(If I could, I change it, but I don't know how to do. And sorry for my bad english, I'm a french frog...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.242.20.57 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There's more than one notational system. We are using the shogi notation found in Tony Hosking's book. The Shogi Yearbook is using George Hodges's notation. Hosking's notation is more similar to the Japanese system and for that and other reasons, we felt it was superior to Hodges's system. Shogi Yearbook should switch to the Hosking notation as it's easier to read and convert to from Japanese. – ishwar (speak) 19:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We discussed it a little while ago. However, the discussion was only with me and another person. You can read it here: Talk:Shogi/Archive_3#shogi_notation_on_wikipedia. And, we can discuss it again. My bias is that I dont like Hodges's notation: letters are terrible. – ishwar (speak) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I personnally prefer Hodge's notation, which seems more used than the other (including by Japaneses themselves, in their books in English)/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.242.20.58 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? I almost always see Japanese folks using 2 numbers in English. And, i've never seen them use letters in a book. (If you are talking about Aono's two books, then that was due to Fairbairn's translation work which was associated with Hodges.) The blogger yamajunn did prominently use the letters in all of his webpages. And, the Shogi Shack person, too. But, those are the only example i know of. Apart from that, i see letters used on some of the flash kifu readers used on websites.

To make matters worse, Hidetchi has created a 3rd notation that doesnt use letters for the piece abbreviations, which makes it completely unusable for the normal non-Japanese person.

So, given that there's not going to be anymore stuff coming from Hodges, we may not see much more of the Hodges notation in book/magazine form. Basically, Hodges made his notation, and some people followed it. Hosking made his own different notation. And, new Japanese publishings ignore the English authors and do something different as well. And, the Leggett book earlier did something different, too (with the even worse Roman numerals!). So did, the Japanese Ohara before him.

I dont see anything being a standard from this. But, it might be useful to have a standard. I mean, a poll can created or something – not necessarily on Wikipedia – and we follow what the generally preferred notation is. The problem is that the shogi community is very sparsely distributed and not very much in communication with each other with no central organizing body. I myself dont really want to be responsible for choosing a standard for Wikipedia with little input from the rest of the non-Japanese world since hopefully the Wikipedia information can be useful for everyone. It's just that not many shogi players are also Wikipedia editors.... – ishwar (speak) 17:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@ 145.242.20.58: If there is a particular style of notation which is used by clear majority of published books, magazines, etc. written in English about shogi, then I think it would be OK to use that for Wikipedia articles. As Ish ishwar points out, however, this does not seem to be the case. Therefore, I think it's probably better to stick what is being used for the time being. Just for reference, by "published", I mean WP:PUBLISHED, and not just someone's blog or personal website, and considered to be reputable when it comes to things shogi. Ideally, any kind of advocated by the Japan Shogi Association would be a good thing to consider since most of the non-Japanese shogi world seems to follow its lead; however, I am not sure if they have established anything official yet. I'm not aware of any books, websites, etc. about shogi where the JSA is the sole author and which are not direct translations of Japanese sources.

When I was learning how to play chess, most of the books, magazines, newspapers at the time used descriptive notation. However, as I got older, algebraic notation replaced descriptive notation as the standard used. In actual tournament games, my opponents tended to use a variety of notations (including some non-English ones) because that was with they were most comfortable with. I think the same extends to the notation used for shogi in English materials. Early on, most everything was written by Hodges or Fairbairn, so others followed their lead. In the 90s, Hosking's wrote some books that became popular among non-Japanese shogi players, so the style he used became popular. Shogi professional Akira Nishio started writing a blog about openings and he used the all numeral format that Wikipedia currently uses; Nishio appears to have stopped working on his blog, but if enough other professionals started writing blogs or books, etc. which used a different format from what we are currently using, then that might be something worth considering. It also might be useful to know what kind of software is being used in any English shogi software, not websites for playing games, but in actual software or game databases.

Finally, just some unrelated general comments. Please try to sign your talk page posts even if you're editing from just an IP address. It's good talk page practice, and is easily done as explained in WP:TILDE. Also, please try to not add any comments to pages which have already been archived like you did here. It's better to start a new discussion on the current article talk page instead because that is the one that most editors will be watching. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Also 145.242.20.58, P-7f would be the move black (sente) would make to open their bishop's diagonal to start a game using your preferred notation style. P-7h may open a bishop's diagonal in some other position though, but I don't think that's what you meant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly what they meant. – ishwar (speak) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

a bit copied from my talk page + my reply:

Western shogi notation

Back in 23 August, you seem to have changed the row designator for all shogi notation from [a-i] to [1-9]. Although this is closer to Japanese notation, it is not what I have seen elsewhere in Western shogi literature. --IanOsgood (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes.

The numbers are used by Tony Hosking of The Shogi Foundation of England. In the 1990s, he has published 3 shogi books, 1 book on shogi + 3 other games, and is a co-translator of a Yoshiharu Habu book.

I dont know if it is defined as western, but the Nekomado publishing company has translated about 6 books in English with a two-number notation (although it's quite different from the two western notations as can be seen here: Shogi_notation#Kitao–Kawasaki_notation). And, several Japanese bloggers (prominently the professional Akira Nishio) currently use some form of a two-number notation.

The letter notation was used in the 1970s–1980s material originating from George Hodges (and the associated John Fairbairn). Perhaps some other folks have also used the same notation. But, as these things are out of print, i have never seen them, and so, dont really know what notation they use. Outside of traditional publishing, there seem to be a number of older websites that do use Hodges's letter notation.

Since Hodges has passed away, i guess it's possible that new things will not use the letter notation? But, it's hard to say. At any rate, as far as I know, the most recently published material does not use the letter notation.

The reasons for the change are listed in the earlier discussion, which is here: Talk:Shogi/Archive_3#shogi_notation_on_wikipedia. (i wish this page wasnt archived so greedily, it's inconvenient and sort of hides talk information....) – ishwar (speak) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Copying my reply here, where the discussion is more active. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In my research, the vast majority of international shogi notation and diagrams online and in non-Japanese literature use Hodges notation (P-7f), therefore non-Japanese Wikipedia sites should follow suit. Evidence:

1. Google results. Of the top fifty international sites returned from searching "shogi", about 10% mention shogi notation or board coordinates. Of those, all but one (28. http://81dojo.com/en/) use Hodges notation:

3. https://genedavissoftware.com/shogi-game-notation/
4. http://www.chessvariants.com/shogi.html (+ jap)
14. http://www.shogi.net/arc/games/ (N3g, diagrams jap) and http://www.shogi.net/nexus/ (N3g)
16. Shogi.cz (international shogi pieces: board was printed with letters and Japanese rank labeling)
21. https://www.playok.com/en/shogi/
22. http://www.iggamecenter.com/info/en/shogi.html
32. https://play.mogproject.com (diagram generator)
38. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnushogi/manual/The-rules-of-shogi.html

2. English shogi books. (Admittedly, my library is small and apparently old.)

Shogi for Beginners, John Fairbairn
Better Moves for Better Shogi, Aono Teruichi, trans. Fairbairn
Introduction to Handicap Play, Larry Kaufman
Shogi Yearbooks from http://www.shogi24.com/yearbooks.htm
but as mentioned above the Hosking books from the 90s use Hosking notation

3. Shogi software. (Actually, most shogi software is Japanese and uses Japanese notation. Could use more data here.)

Kifu Free - Android app
GNU shogi

4. Portable Shogi Notation (PSN) standard (https://genedavissoftware.com/shogi/portable-shogi-notation/)

But other data formats are different: KIF and KF2 use Japanese notation
CSA uses Hosking with different piece codes

Based on this evidence, I think it behooves us to switch back to Hodges notation. (Thank you for providing your counter-evidence; seems to be a generation gap! And perhaps showing that international shogi info on the web needs a refresh.) --IanOsgood (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(One idea to make this transition and future policy decisions less painful is to use templates for shogi moves and move lists, with an optional parameter for the preferred display notation, similar to how we have date templates for i18n support. I'm not enough of a template expert to know if this is feasible. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC))

(I also would like to mention that I actually prefer the two-numeral notation, since it is closer to Japanese notation and has less dissonance with algebraic chess notation. But I have not personally witnessed a transition from Hodges to Hosking notation in the wider internet. --IanOsgood (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC))

It's probably still necessary to use Hodges' notation for the large shogi variants (mostly chu shogi), because it seems to be the only attested one for those in English (aside from Winboard's internal totally Western-style notation), and also because the numbers-only notation gets out of hand for larger than 9×9 boards (is "111" supposed to mean "1(11)" or "(11)1"?). But obviously that side issue shouldn't dictate what we use for standard shogi. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering the print sources, there doesnt seem to be a standard. The print sources carry more weight, i think. As for the internet sources, they are old. The older the site, the more likely the author would have not bought Hosking's books yet. Additionally, there are other sites that do not use the letter notation including sites written by Japanese author, which IanOsgood is omitting. Using Google search results will favor older websites since the search result is likely largely a (positive) function of the site's age and the length of time that it has been linked to from Wikipedia itself (kind of circular in a way). All that said, i don't think we should ignore the internet. It's just a matter of what weight to assign it in our considerations.

More importantly, the newest material from the Nekomado group does not use the letter notation. If this state of affairs continues, then the letter notation is likely to become obsolete. Well, it's just speculation – we can't predict the future. (Maybe this is not a real argument point...)

On another point, it seems like most folks do not like the letter notation. If we accept that the notations are more or less equally used in print, then we should use the preferable notation. Right now, the N is small as we only have a few opinions here and i have asked only a few Americans & Europeans elsewhere and so this is purely anecdotal, but no one so far seems to like the letters.

Thirdly, the serious shogi student is ultimately going to have to go to Japanese language literature, so the greater similarity to Japanese notation should carry significant weight, in my opinion. This is the main reason i suggested switching: i was looking at Japanese books and making a 六 = f association, for instance, is slower and more error prone than making a 六 = 6 association.

Fourth, this is purely a practical matter. It's kind of annoying to change the notation back. Who is really motivated to do it if that is what we decide? I haven't added much new notation to theory pages recently as i'm working on shogi player pages. But, after a year of adding theory bit by bit, it starts to add up to somewhat sizeable edit job. I'm more motivated to add new theory info rather than spend time switching notations (as they are equivalent anyway). At any rate, i'm not making the problem worse and won't do so until we figure it out. – ishwar (speak) 21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)