Life In 19x19

Why has no one developped a go mod like this, either as a wooden board or online, yet? Instead of playing on intersections, place stones inside the squares. (Obv for a 19 x 19 board, you would need 19 x 19 squares.) Instantly, counting becomes 30 times easier for everyone involved. 100 Go Professionals Hate This Cheat. Seriously, nobody?!

“If aliens play go, they play inside the squares” - Maharani

Traditions run deep. Traditions survive because they either work or there's no rational reason to change them. Personally, counting after rearranging the stones is an endearing part of go's endgame ritual.I would not change it for frivolous reasons, certainly not to make it easier to count or for playing inside the squares, which aren't really squares, you know. There's another tradition with no rational reason to change although folks have tried.

It sounds like you are talking about counting during the game, and not after the game is finished. Either way, I don't really see how counting squares is "30 times easier" than counting dots.

People don't like counting because it is mentally taxing. Especially in close tournament games, where you are counting and recounting many times. Dots vs. squares is not an issue, in my opinion.

mhlepore wrote:People don't like counting because it is mentally taxing. Especially in close tournament games, where you are counting and recounting many times.

Why so often? IMHO, I doubt if it does much good to count — and plan — more than 4 times per game, as a rule. OC, when there is a large furikawari you need to reassess, and maybe after a ko fight. Note that I said count and plan. If counting isn't part of making a plan, it is probably a waste of time. As Znosko-Borovsky says, don't be quick to change your plan. Have some confidence in yourself. Even at the SDK level, counting after move 200 is probably too late.

First I was skeptical but then I put it to the test. 30 is of course proverbial but it's surprisingly easier to count a table of squares than a table of points. Never occurred to me!

Further discussion: https://forums.online-go.com/t/visualiz ... -to-count/

Besides which, if you have a board of 19x19 squares, you can play 20x20 go on the intersections.

Bill Spight wrote:

mhlepore wrote:People don't like counting because it is mentally taxing. Especially in close tournament games, where you are counting and recounting many times.

Why so often? IMHO, I doubt if it does much good to count — and plan — more than 4 times per game...

Because I'm Lee Changho?

Actually, because endgame is hard to me. I believe amateurs lose a lot of won games by thinking they are a few points behind and trying something stupid, when actually good endgame play would grind out a win.

But most importantly, we cannot move to squares because Sorin's website is already named 361points.com.

For many of us who have been playing on the intersections for so long it's hard to imagine not putting the stones anywhere but the intersections, but I think for most people who grew up with chess and checkers, many aspects of the game, not just counting, would have been easier to learn, visualize and understand if the stones were placed in the squares.

In real life, it's quite easy to try out. For computer go, a client that translated squares into intersections would also be fairly trivial. It does however seem to be an utterly moot point because nobody does that.

I find that vizualising squares in my head is easier than vizualising intersections.

Tetris will never be the same

Supposing it is easier to count the score with squares instead of intersections (seems it is, given the feedback), are there any downsides?

Reading out sequences: better/worse/same
Life and death: better/worse/same
What else???

mhlepore wrote:Supposing it is easier to count the score with squares instead of intersections (seems it is, given the feedback), are there any downsides?

Reading out sequences: better/worse/same
Life and death: better/worse/same
What else???

Number of lines visible when the board is full: zero with intersections, all with squares.

What is required to make an unambiguous move: covering an intersection (and it is impossible to cover two) versus covering a significantly greater portion of the intended square than of any other square (more difficult).

If I use this method, but maintain the same amount of effort, will I be thirty times as precise?

luigi wrote:Number of lines visible when the board is full: zero with intersections, all with squares.

I didn't think of that. I agree it's a downside.