I realized it’d be much better if I referred to a general concept, instead of specific definition, just to spark ideas rather than invite challenges. The original point was to change perspectives and let foreground be background (some kind of duality - in general English) like this.
You already have a smart solution by just changing the background picture. Let me extend it and combine the Escher’s idea. Let the lines be wider and wider across the board, the stones will still be on lines (and intersections). But visually they will appear in squares. It’s still the same board, same game, and same rules.
I think the reason that the diameter of a go stone is slightly larger than the smaller of the two line distances is to make them hold together a bit. But wouldn’t making a depression centered at each intersection be a more effective way to keep the stones in place? But I have never seen a go board with depressions at the intersections. I wonder why no one has tried this. With slightly smaller diameter stones, it should work very well.
I think that 9p players (and maybe 9d as well) keep a mental count of territories, at least through the end game if not throughout. That way they always know if they are ahead or not and can adjust tactics and maybe even strategy appropriately. Just my speculation,
Since you are replying to me, I clarify: I was not talking at all about the difference in diameter between white and black stones, nor was I referring to the advantage of holes or cavities for blind and visually impaired players.
It was not informative for me. I am serious about my suggestion to try out a depression at each intersection. While it certainly would not work the same way a magnetic board does, I think it would provide a new level of comfort for all of us who love real boards and stones: much less fiddling with the positions of stones so as to see their relationships more clearly.
To clarify: I am not opposed to assistive technologies for blind and visually impaired people; indeed, I have done a bit of work and am educated in that area.
But my interest in go is here focused on a specific serious proposal. Does anyone agree that playing Go would be easier and more fun with a board that works the way I described?
Interesting … in the early 1980s I had the idea to create a Go board with a copper sheet into which I wanted to punch dents where the intersections are, with black and white marbles as stones … sadly I never got to make it real.