Life In 19x19

Is there any possibility we could have a Red stone board markup (with R or something) so we can put solid red stones on boards?

Unnecessary, but if it was easy to implement, it would be nice

Since I assume this is for the redstone game, might I suggest you use the '+' character?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B black captures
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | X O X . . .
$$ | C O X . . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

results in:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B white to play
$$ ------------
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | X . X . . .
$$ | + . X . . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Given the way redstone works, there is no need for any actual red stones, as the effect is identical to removing an intersection from the game entirely.

Yeah, not particularly elegant, but that makes a lot of sense ... will try that!

topazg wrote:Is there any possibility we could have a Red stone board markup (with R or something) so we can put solid red stones on boards?

Unnecessary, but if it was easy to implement, it would be nice

That would also work for 3 color go. But Herman's suggestion is very elegant.

So do we still want an actual red stone added, or is it best left out?

It has been brought up before that if we start messing with L19's way of reading the board markup, it will break compatibility with Sensei's, which isn't really desirable.

jts wrote:It has been brought up before that if we start messing with L19's way of reading the board markup, it will break compatibility with Sensei's, which isn't really desirable.

Ok, no problem. It is easy to do if e ever want it, but it is indeed nice to stay in line with the standard.

Also, if you want the red stones by be useful for anything much, such as three color go, then you would need red stones with numbers and/or markers on them. Which is not easy to do at all.

Actually, this is just a simple addition, unlike some of the changes that were proposed in the past. So it would work fine with existing diagrams.

We should check with Arno and what he thinks, but I think it shouldn't be a problem. I don't do PHP, but it sure looked like it could be dropped into the existing code without much trouble. (Just saw Herman's post: I don't know about markers).

HermanHiddema wrote:Also, if you want the red stones by be useful for anything much, such as three color go, then you would need red stones with numbers and/or markers on them. Which is not easy to do at all.

I guess I am saying that, if we agree upon a format for which we want to change (i.e. what symbol maps to what image), it is not hard for me to implement it.

It might be difficult to decide what ascii symbols we want to use for markers on red stones and such - that might be difficult. But if we ever wanted to do something like this, it would not be hard for me to write up.

However, I agree with the sentiment that others have expressed - it is not great to deviate too much from the standard that's used on senseis.

I'm just saying that, if we wanted to in some way, I'll go ahead and do it.

Kirby wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Also, if you want the red stones by be useful for anything much, such as three color go, then you would need red stones with numbers and/or markers on them. Which is not easy to do at all.

It might be difficult to decide what ascii symbols we want to use for markers on red stones and such - that might be difficult. But if we ever wanted to do something like this, it would not be hard for me to write up.

Simple symbol to marker mapping is easy. But how do you implement numbers? For three color go, you want something like: B1, W2, R3, B4, W5, R6, etc. You would have to rewrite the whole numbering part. But for redstone, you need something like: B1, W2, B3, W4, R5, W6, etc. SO there the numbering part would be different yet again.

Anyway, I see little value in adding stuff like this for specific variations, because there's a million of them out there, all with different needs.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the ok. Just being able to place red stones is enough for people who want to play this variant. Having them be numbered is just added convenience.

hyperpape wrote:Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the ok. Just being able to place red stones is enough for people who want to play this variant. Having them be numbered is just added convenience.

Perhaps you can make a poll to see if we want anything changed. Based on the results, I can take the appropriate action (or do nothing).

hyperpape wrote:Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the ok. Just being able to place red stones is enough for people who want to play this variant. Having them be numbered is just added convenience.

I would also be opposed to the change if numbers could be added. Throwing in support for some random variant, in any form, is a bad idea.

The "perfect" solution, IMO, is to have diagrams that support everything we need to discuss go. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kirby wrote:

hyperpape wrote:Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the ok. Just being able to place red stones is enough for people who want to play this variant. Having them be numbered is just added convenience.

Perhaps you can make a poll to see if we want anything changed. Based on the results, I can take the appropriate action (or do nothing).

there's no need for a poll.

this is just some random variant fad that will likely die out soon.

don't risk breaking what already works for go.