Coordinate System Proposal (corner-relative)

[YeGO]

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the proposed system used to relabel the 19x19 GnuGo ascii board

Code: Select all

  A B C D E F G H J K 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 . . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + W . . 4
5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
K . . . + . . . . . Z . . . . . + . . . K
J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G
F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F
E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E
D . . X + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . . D
C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . . C
B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B
A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
  A B C D E F G H J K 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Note: V, W, X, Y, and Z are just to mark these examples
V is at C3 or C-3
W is at 34 or 3-4
X is at CD or C-D
Y is at 4C or 4-C
Z is at KK or K-K

Coordinates are written as [column]-[row]
The hyphen between the characters is optional, however consistency is recommended
Letters can optionally be written as lower-case, however consistency and upper-case is recommended
The letter "I" was intentionally skipped to avoid confusion

Fuseki examples
(Low Chinese) 44 4C 3J
(High Chinese) 44 4C 4J
(Kobayashi) 44 4C FC KD
(Korean) 44 3D FC 9C

If scaling down to smaller boards, truncate from the center, but use a letter for the central line, e.g., center of 9x9 board is EE, center of 13x13 is GG.

If scaling up to larger boards, extend letters alphabetically and numbers into double-digits. However, hyphen use (or a leading zero) is required to disambiguate.

This idea is based on similar systems that also label the board relative to the corners
http://senseis.xmp.net/?AudouardCoordinates
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Rokirovka%2FCoordinates

However, the proposed system has some benefits:
Coordinates are consistently 2 (or 3 if using hyphens) characters for sizes up to 19x19
First moves in the "polite triangle" are naturally labeled (e.g., 33, 34, 44, 35)
Letter vs number distinguishes sides and corners of the board
No additional/special characters are needed disambiguate the corner

Perhaps this idea has been proposed before (since it seems fairly natural), but I haven't found this exact system on Sensei's Library.

[YeGO]

The system is also straightforward to "easternize" by substituting the letters with 一二三四五六七八九十

The natural labeling of the "polite triangle" first moves makes the conventions of the system easier to remember

[oren]

Perhaps this idea has been proposed before (since it seems fairly natural), but I haven't found this exact system on Sensei's Library.

Looking at it, it seems unnatural to me.

Personally I prefer the column, row both being number/number as Japan does it, but I can live with the normal Western representation with letter/number. This just seems completely confusing.

[Bantari]

Hmm...
What problem are you trying to fix?

[YeGO]

What problem are you trying to fix?

The purpose isn't necessarily to fix a "problem", but rather offer an alternative that provides a different perspective.

Like other corner-relative systems (such as Audouard and Rokirovka), the aim is to conceptualize the coordinates as distance from the nearest corner, which is often how players think and talk about moves (e.g., terms like "3-4 5-3 enclosure" are often used regardless of which corner the moves are actually played).

Some find this type of system easier to visualize. In fact, the Audouard system was developed and used by a professional player who had severe sight loss and found this system to be more accommodating than the traditional absolute coordinate systems.

My specific proposal is perhaps just yet another corner-relative system, but I believe it may have some advantages over the other corner-relative systems (see the benefits that I listed above).

Looking at it, it seems unnatural to me.

"Natural" was probably the wrong word for me to use since that is highly subjective and not quite what I intended. What I meant is that I thought that this proposal seemed like a logical way to setup a corner-relative system, and that I wouldn't be surprised if the same exact thing had been proposed before. However, I would gladly claim credit if this were indeed novel.

Whether or not a corner-relative or absolute coordinate system is more "natural" is of course highly subjective and a matter of personal preference, but some players do find corner-relative systems to be helpful (see above).

Code: Select all

 4-4 points under different systems (note: NOT in corresponding order)
"A1" (western absolute): D4, D16, Q4, Q16
"一1" (CJK absolute): 四4, 四16, 十六4, 十六16
"1-1" (numerical absolute): 4-4, 4-16, 16-4, 16-16
My proposal (western): 44, 4D, D4, DD
My proposal (CJK): 44, 4四, 四4, 四四
Audouard: a44, b44, c44, d44
Rokirovka: D4, D*4, D4*, D*4*

[YeGO]

Alternative diagrams to explain the above system (Western and CJK)

Code: Select all

A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 J1 K1 91 81 71 61 51 41 31 21 11
A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 J2 K2 92 82 72 62 52 42 32 22 12
A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 J3 K3 93 83 73 63 53 43 33 23 13
A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4 J4 K4 94 84 74 64 54 44 34 24 14
A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 H5 J5 K5 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15
A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6 J6 K6 96 86 76 66 56 46 36 26 16
A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7 J7 K7 97 87 77 67 57 47 37 27 17
A8 B8 C8 D8 E8 F8 G8 H8 J8 K8 98 88 78 68 58 48 38 28 18
A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9 J9 K9 99 89 79 69 59 49 39 29 19
AK BK CK DK EK FK GK HK JK KK 9K 8K 7K 6K 5K 4K 3K 2K 1K
AJ BJ CJ DJ EJ FJ GJ HJ JJ KJ 9J 8J 7J 6J 5J 4J 3J 2J 1J
AH BH CH DH EH FH GH HH JH KH 9H 8H 7H 6H 5H 4H 3H 2H 1H
AG BG CG DG EG FG GG HG JG KG 9G 8G 7G 6G 5G 4G 3G 2G 1G
AF BF CF DF EF FF GF HF JF KF 9F 8F 7F 6F 5F 4F 3F 2F 1F
AE BE CE DE EE FE GE HE JE KE 9E 8E 7E 6E 5E 4E 3E 2E 1E
AD BD CD DD ED FD GD HD JD KD 9D 8D 7D 6D 5D 4D 3D 2D 1D
AC BC CC DC EC FC GC HC JC KC 9C 8C 7C 6C 5C 4C 3C 2C 1C
AB BB CB DB EB FB GB HB JB KB 9B 8B 7B 6B 5B 4B 3B 2B 1B
AA BA CA DA EA FA GA HA JA KA 9A 8A 7A 6A 5A 4A 3A 2A 1A

Code: Select all

一１ 二１ 三１ 四１ 五１ 六１ 七１ 八１ 九１ 十１ ９１ ８１ ７１ ６１ ５１ ４１ ３１ ２１ １１
一２ 二２ 三２ 四２ 五２ 六２ 七２ 八２ 九２ 十２ ９２ ８２ ７２ ６２ ５２ ４２ ３２ ２２ １２
一３ 二３ 三３ 四３ 五３ 六３ 七３ 八３ 九３ 十３ ９３ ８３ ７３ ６３ ５３ ４３ ３３ ２３ １３
一４ 二４ 三４ 四４ 五４ 六４ 七４ 八４ 九４ 十４ ９４ ８４ ７４ ６４ ５４ ４４ ３４ ２４ １４
一５ 二５ 三５ 四５ 五５ 六５ 七５ 八５ 九５ 十５ ９５ ８５ ７５ ６５ ５５ ４５ ３５ ２５ １５
一６ 二６ 三６ 四６ 五６ 六６ 七６ 八６ 九６ 十６ ９６ ８６ ７６ ６６ ５６ ４６ ３６ ２６ １６
一７ 二７ 三７ 四７ 五７ 六７ 七７ 八７ 九７ 十７ ９７ ８７ ７７ ６７ ５７ ４７ ３７ ２７ １７
一８ 二８ 三８ 四８ 五８ 六８ 七８ 八８ 九８ 十８ ９８ ８８ ７８ ６８ ５８ ４８ ３８ ２８ １８
一９ 二９ 三９ 四９ 五９ 六９ 七９ 八９ 九９ 十９ ９９ ８９ ７９ ６９ ５９ ４９ ３９ ２９ １９
一十 二十 三十 四十 五十 六十 七十 八十 九十 十十 ９十 ８十 ７十 ６十 ５十 ４十 ３十 ２十 １十
一九 二九 三九 四九 五九 六九 七九 八九 九九 十九 ９九 ８九 ７九 ６九 ５九 ４九 ３九 ２九 １九
一八 二八 三八 四八 五八 六八 七八 八八 九八 十八 ９八 ８八 ７八 ６八 ５八 ４八 ３八 ２八 １八
一七 二七 三七 四七 五七 六七 七七 八七 九七 十七 ９七 ８七 ７七 ６七 ５七 ４七 ３七 ２七 １七
一六 二六 三六 四六 五六 六六 七六 八六 九六 十六 ９六 ８六 ７六 ６六 ５六 ４六 ３六 ２六 １六
一五 二五 三五 四五 五五 六五 七五 八五 九五 十五 ９五 ８五 ７五 ６五 ５五 ４五 ３五 ２五 １五
一四 二四 三四 四四 五四 六四 七四 八四 九四 十四 ９四 ８四 ７四 ６四 ５四 ４四 ３四 ２四 １四
一三 二三 三三 四三 五三 六三 七三 八三 九三 十三 ９三 ８三 ７三 ６三 ５三 ４三 ３三 ２三 １三
一二 二二 三二 四二 五二 六二 七二 八二 九二 十二 ９二 ８二 ７二 ６二 ５二 ４二 ３二 ２二 １二
一一 二一 三一 四一 五一 六一 七一 八一 九一 十一 ９一 ８一 ７一 ６一 ５一 ４一 ３一 ２一 １一

[Bantari]

My specific proposal is perhaps just yet another corner-relative system, but I believe it may have some advantages over the other corner-relative systems (see the benefits that I listed above).

Enough advantages to outweight either:
(a) re-writing all the books, software, websites, and other info already in existance, or
(b) use multiple systems concurrently, thus adding to the general levels of confusion?

Just wondering...

PS>
Sorry, don't mean to be hostile or anything here. Its just that to me, personally, a change has to have a clear purpose and the advantages of its implementation needs to outweight the problems such process will invariable generate - especially if you propose to change an established system.

Conceptually, I don't see nothing wrong with the system you propose. But I also see no real advantages. You are right, it might improve our "distance from corner" perception, but this is at the cost of numbers-and-letters-mixing which I (and others) find messy. And this evens out. So I am stuck with the question: what other advantages would this new system offer to go through all that hassle?

[YeGO]

I am not at all suggesting a universal change and adoption of the proposed system.

As I said above, the proposal is merely an alternative. One that people could choose whether or not to use based on their personal preferences.

As I also said above, I believe the proposal may have some advantages over the other corner-relative systems, such using a consistent number of characters (for up to 19x19) and avoiding special characters to disambiguate the corner.

I think any comparison between the proposal (or any corner-relative system) versus absolute coordinate systems is inherently subjective, and advantages/disadvantages between the two classes (corner-relative vs. absolute) are mostly a matter of personal preference.

(a) re-writing all the books, software, websites, and other info already in existance

Again, I'm not all suggesting that we need to re-write all of the go media out there. This system is merely an option that people can choose to use if they find it convenient.

Also, for a lot of the digital media (software, websites, e-books), translating between different coordinate systems is relatively simple to implement as a user option in how the content is presented.

(b) use multiple systems concurrently, thus adding to the general levels of confusion?

It seems that there already are multiple systems concurrently and widely used. There seem to be at least three (or two if you count the numerical systems with and without CJK letters as one) widely used absolute coordinate systems (i.e., "Q16", "4-16", or "四16" to describe the top-right star point), and there already are at least two alternative, corner-relative systems that have been proposed (see "Audouard" and "Rokirovka" that I mentioned above). There does not appear to be a universally accepted coordinate system.

Ultimately, I don't think offering a new alternative really adds much general confusion. In fact, if corner-relative systems help some players visualize the moves/board position better, perhaps such systems help decrease confusion.

Conceptually, I don't see nothing wrong with the system you propose. But I also see no real advantages. You are right, it might improve our "distance from corner" perception, but this is at the cost of numbers-and-letters-mixing which I (and others) find messy. And this evens out. So I am stuck with the question: what other advantages would this new system offer to go through all that hassle?

As I mentioned above, corner-relative systems in general may be helpful for some players that find it much easier to visualize than absolute coordinate systems. For some, such as severely visual impaired players that must rely on coordinates being read to them, using such a system may be essential to playing the game. That in itself seems to be a fairly compelling reason to warrant the existence and discussion of such systems, rather than simply dismissing them.

Personally, I find absolute coordinate systems to be more of a hassle since it's much harder for me to figure out where coordinates point to (particularly those using letters larger than K) without referring to a labelled board. I don't really feel mixing letters and numbers (as already done in the western system) is messy or costly. However, I can see that other players may have a different point of view on these issues.

The Sensei's Library article for the Audouard coordinate system (one of the similar corner-relative system that inspired my proposed system) explains the motivation of Pierre Audouard, who devised that system and is a visually impaired go professional:

Pierre Audouard has severe visual impairment (Retinitis pigmentosa). He can just about see a go board adequately for playing if a strong light is shone on the board. However he cannot follow a game from a printed paper. He invented these coordinates in order to be able to replay pro and amateur games on a board. He now uses special audio software that reads out the moves from a sgf file using this coordinate system. He finds it much easier to mentally visualise the board using these coordinates than with the standard coordinates. Standard coordinates are not natural for a go player, who is used to referring to points according to their distance from the corner. This system is much closer to that way of reasoning. For the same reason, Audouard coordinates are better for blindfold go than usual coordinates.

[DrStraw]

I see no reason to make any changes when we have something which works and has worked for a long time. Certainly any change would have to add utility. If you are wanting to make a coordinate system then why not set tengen to be the origin? That way all the hoshi points have the same absolute value of their coordinates, and 4-3 and 3-4 points are merely reflection in the coordinate system.

But as I said, I am not in favor of any such change.

[YeGO]

I see no reason to make any changes when we have something which works and has worked for a long time.

Again, I'm not suggesting a universal change, but merely offering an alternative idea that people can choose to adopt if they find it useful.

Certainly any change would have to add utility.

I believe the general concept of corner-relative systems have been useful to some players that find it easier to visualize, including those with severe visual impairments who rely on read coordinates. This general concept is not new, and the proposal is really just a minor tweak on the idea.

If you are wanting to make a coordinate system then why not set tengen to be the origin? That way all the hoshi points have the same absolute value of their coordinates, and 4-3 and 3-4 points are merely reflection in the coordinate system.

The aim of this and similar corner-relevant systems is to base the coordinates relative to the nearest corner, which reflects what people often do when talking about positions (and as you have done when referring to the 3-4 points. Note that you didn't say "... and 16-17, 17-16, 17-4, 16-3, 4-17, 3-16")

But as I said, I am not in favor of any such change.

Don't worry, I doubt any one will force you to use it, nor are there any broad sweeping changes being suggested.

[EdLee]

In addition to corner-relative, how about a tengen-relative system with polar coordinates.

BTW, Qwerty won .

[tekesta]

Hmm. Tengen-based coordinates? Sounds interesting Tengen is 0,0 and first line would be all 9s, with top and right side first line in positive and bottom and left side first line in negative. Bottom left star point would be -6,-6. Bottom right star point would be 6,-6. Left side star point would be -6,0. (Hope I got it right. I was thinking of coordinates for finding locations on the Earth's surface.)

Coordinates are for recording moves in printed format. In actual play coordinates don't really matter, as the player does not think about them. Rather, relative positions of stones are more important.

There is also the perception problem. Go players consider the first line to be the bottom and tengen to be the top. Think of stones setting up base near the valley bottom in preparation for a long climb up the mountain, with the tengen at the peak. Personally I consider a goban to be flat ground and tengen is just "center point".

Yes, Go players tend to perceive distances from corners, but if I say 3-5 point, do I mean 3,5, 3,15, 17,5, or 17,15?

I'm OK with the letter + number algebraic system of coordinates. Letters are on the bottom and numbers are on the side. The XY system may be confusing for some, as one has to remember that the first number is on the horizontal axis and the second one is on the vertical axis.

[xed_over]

competing standards
http://xkcd.com/927/

[YeGO]

In addition to corner-relative, how about a tengen-relative system with polar coordinates.

BTW, Qwerty won .

If someone finds the board easier to visualize that way, why not? However, I guess that idea didn't seem to be very well received the last time it was brought up here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10721

Overall, I'm quite surprised about the nature of the reactions to this idea, which is really just a small tweak upon the existing concept of corner-relative coordinates. I didn't expect the responses to turn into an overwhelming rejection of the broader concept of corner-relative coordinates, nor did I expect such snark in response to my genuine proposal.

Perhaps the community may just be overwhelmingly against the mere mention of alternative coordinate systems, even if there isn't even agreement over calling the top-left corner "1-1" or "A19".

Is this some sort of taboo subject that I've stumbled into?

[xed_over]

What problem are you trying to fix?

The purpose isn't necessarily to fix a "problem", but rather offer an alternative that provides a different perspective.

But coordinates do have a point. Its about communication. And if we're not speaking the same language, they become useless.

Its difficult enough that Western coordinates label A-T (or sometimes S) across the top from left to right, and 1-19 from bottom to top, while Eastern coordinates number from top to bottom. And when referring to a point, which is referenced first, a row, or a column? Even on the same demo board, students and teachers aren't speaking the same language, one says row-column, the other says column-row.

Of course, a real board doesn't have any coordinates, so that explains why a 5-4 point could be in any one of 8 actual points.