Visualize go this way, instantly make it 30 times easier to count

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Get the background here: Board backgrounds library - #77 by yebellz

Set the lines to (224, 187, 108) for RGB values, or the hex is #e0bb6c (note: the color input widget is browser dependent and some will accept color values in different ways).

Note: also need to turn off the coordinates to get things to align. If you want to use coordinates, you need to make a different version that has a properly sized margin to account for that and manually add the coordinates to your background image (since the ones added by the site will be painted on top in the same color as the board, and actually that might interfere with you adding coordinates back in manually).


I can count a lot easier now :slight_smile:


You need to turn off the coordinates or make a different background that has a margin to account for the coordinates.


Thats so stupid. :laughing: I love it


That makes a lot of sense actually :slight_smile:

I dont expect too many people Ill need to talk to about the co-ordinates on this version. Maybe if someone streams it, but they could overlay their own coordinates anyway.

Actually after yebellz made that board background, this feels even more true.


some needs to make this a meme

feels so wrong but kinda make sense


post it on reddit


I was planning to do both of these still need to figure out how to write the meme


Ive heard that playing inside the squares would have made it more obvious if the lines werent drawn perfectly straight, which makes sense for a board game played 5,000 years ago.

Of course, the only good answer in 2021 is, Im so fancy-schmancy-dancy-with-holes-in-my-pants-y that I can artificially visualize the squares under my control without having to literally count them like a lesser ape.

Squares show this just as well: They are connected if they share a side (whereas sharing a corner is not enough to be connected).

Of course, if youve spent, like, an hour playing go, reading wont be that much harder on intersections compared to squares. But if you want to make go popular, the intersections are IMO highly counterintuitive. Ill say it again: If aliens play go, they play inside the squares.

1 Like

Just out of curiosity, but how many aliens do you know?


All the aliens I know that play go play on the lines. Extraterrestrials on the other hand


I love the title, good choice

Another suggestion about counting -

I find it easier to count by twos. A little quicker, and it makes losing your spot harder.

Also, I only keep one value in my head. First, Ill count my territory, then when I count my opponents territory Ill count backwards from my number. So 1, 2, 3, 4 for me then 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 , -1 . . . Say I have 80 points (40 if counting by twos) and my opponent has 84 points (42) Ill remember the number -2 which is how far behind I am. If Im ahead, of course, the number will be positive (though who am I kidding)

I find this is much easier than thinking Okay, they have 35 points, and I have 40 points. Then something changes. Okay, they have 32 points, and I have 42 points. That is double sente three points, then they take the ko . . .

To practice, you can just watch other peoples games.


Burn the heretic!


地nd the stones are little cubes.


this image is so jarring. Thank you for cursing me with it

personally Ive just never considered that this might be helpful to anyone are you visualizing each point as a square and thus visualizing the dual of the graph that is the go board? Not to be rude, but I dont have a strong visual imagination (always thought close your eyes and imagine色 was just a way to get kids to shut up), and a bit curious about what ppl who exercise it regularly do


My initial feeling was that this is a ridiculous suggestion. But on second thought, it is somewhat arbitrary to use intersections or its dual of squares. It is only a visualisation choice.

What I like about this visualisation:
Sides and corners cover more visual area. So it is more evident that sides and corners are big territorially. Maybe bigger than you feel when using intersections rather than squares, because half of the side intersections are visually outside the edge of the board.

What I dont like about this visualisation:
Somehow I find it harder to spot ataris with these squares. I feel that outgoing lines are a more clear visualisation of liberties and occupation of those liberties. With squares I only have a less accurate, more general impression of space.


Haha! Just looks so wrong! Nice work though :wink:


How ancient players view and record a game

The stones on top dont matter, they are just markers. The locations, the intersections, are the concept behind, not to occupy a square, but to control intersections of roads. What matters isnt the area encircled, but how well establish these connections are. How to better visualize the area wasnt the top priority in our ancestors minds. And from my digging and hypothesis, I dont think the original goal of the precursor games that evolved to Go is about encirclement at all, There are solid evidence and traditions to know that before the time Go was spread to Japan, the goal was about how many stones to live on the board. The bigger encircled area is just convenient for not having to play until the board is filled.