I see that the red Xs are gone now and the current Xs look much better. But I also realised that when I am marking the dead stones my cursor turns into an X as well. Feels very… strange lol. It’s like marking all the wrong answers on a test paper
Yeah I personally think the new cross are not good at all expect for people who need it physically (aka , visual problems)
It’s feels like we forcing people who don’t need it to wear glasses.
Very good if you actually need glass but otherwise it’s really too much.
I’m a baduk player, i just don’t need somes stranges cross on my death stones.
2 Likes
Well, I could also say: I’m a baduk player, I just don’t need somes strange transparency on my death stones.
But they need to be shown somehow. (And I’m saying this as someone who also voted against the crosses. But I can certainly live with them.)
5 Likes
Yep objectively we don’t need the transparency either, but it’s the less heavy and bothering visual clue before not at all
(And in fact we have the transparency PLUS the little square 
of colors, I think it’s enough clues isn’t?)
3 Likes
How many forums posts does OGS need to end up doing the sensible thing other servers have been doing for years?
3 Likes
I mean, we do need some way to distinguish dead stones from others. You may prefer transparency, cross or whatever, but we do need some sort of visual clue.
Which is? It’s not like there’s a consensus on how to visually represent dead stones. Crosses are already used on IGS/GoPanda for instance. 
5 Likes
Technically you can also just remove them like some servers and like you would do on an actual board.
Which server does that?
In any case, it could work after the scoring phase, but not during the scoring phase (as players would have no way to confirm what is dead).
1 Like
I can’t remember which server.
I don’t think it’s a big issue for live games since you can see what is being marked in real time and if something is marked wrongly you can just diagree. It may be an issue for correspondence games since you may not remember exactly where the dead stones were, but there’s always a way to go back to the previous position and check.
We may need some visual aid but certainly not 3 different ones in the same time
Now we have : the small color square, the transparency and the colours cross.
It’s going against clearness and visibility
(and baduk visual)
Summary
The hell is paved with good intention, or in this case with squares, ghost’s stones and cross
2 Likes
Hmmm, I usually agree with my opponent before removing stones when playing on a real board. I don’t communcate my ‘I believe these are dead’ by just taking them off the board. OK admittedly when playing against an opponent with sufficient strength we both remove all obvious ones (which often are all of them) without discussion. But against weaker players I explicitely ask about all of them.
3 Likes
I’ve never seen that at least, so I’d venture to say it’s none of the big servers. I’d be curious to see how that works.
And how do you do that since you can’t click on the stones anymore? Plus you could very well miss a couple stones disappearing somewhere because your opponent clicked it while you were looking elsewhere.
You can just diagree with the final result no?
About the opponent secretly marking some stones as dead, if you have been focusing during the game you would roughly know where your territories are. So if some stones that are not supposed to be dead are dead, it will be pretty obvious since the territory borders will be affected greatly.
Also, I still find it funny that we have all these systems in place to just stop the trolls from doing their things. If the AI can judge the dead stones correctly, or if both players can judge normally, then all of these would be minor issues.
1 Like
Funny and also sad. Personally I never had any trouble in this respect. But that may be because I play nearly exclusively correspondence and we all know that correspondence players are morally superior, right? 
2 Likes
You can refuse to agree with the result that is proposed to you, but how would you switch the stones’ status to what you think is correct?
In any case, my point is that this would be extremely inconvenient, which is why I doubt any sever operates this way. It also doesn’t match the real board process either.
Also it’s not just for trolls; mutual agreement on the status of groups is part of the rules of Go, and legitimate disagreements can happen, even if rare.
1 Like
For territory scoring we need 7 options, 3 options per player for non-neutral intersections:
- Empty territory
- Dead opponent stone inside territory
- Dead opponent stone outside territory
Option 3 is normally the result of a player mistake, like not capturing dead stones in a seki.
For area scoring we also need 7 options, 3 options per player for non-neutral intersections:
- Empty territory
- Dead opponent stone inside territory
- Living stone
Option 3 is normal here.
I think we don’t speak exactly about the same thing 
but i m curious about death stones outside territory, can you show me a exemple ? Or i might not believe it can happen !
I speak about the fact that marking death stones with more than the necessary visual aid needed is useless and harmful, and in consequence my proposition is that the cross should be removed.
What I saw is now quadrat+cross which looks overkill to me.
3 Likes
I can’t see it anywhere else, but in one of my games a single stone has a + on top of it, almost as if the grid is somehow passing through? But it is only that one stone in that one game, and only with AI turned on. 
2 Likes
There’s also
3 of 4 grid-lines passing through the square at B4
and
those 3 are gray - just like the grid-lines through D4 - rather than black
.
3 Likes