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

[Vsotvep]

@shinuito

It’s probably the case for graphs as well when one looks at the dual of the dual, unless one has some rigid idea of what the vertex sets are, then the dual of the dual might only be isomorphic.

Yes, the dual of graphs depends on the planar embedding being used, thus certain isomorphic graphs may have different duals.

[claire_yang]

Never though of territory grid like this, but makes sense.

And if we put a stick of 2-grid length for every 2-grid, it would be like fill in match sticks in the negative territory space, similar to a match stick puzzle. And we don’t even need to count the sticks, just line them up to see who has more.

Maybe historically there might be similar technique or even forgotten tools use just like this. The odd ancient komi system I mentioned in my search for ancient Go precursor, speak of using unit of 3 and exchange for prisoners, and the unit used is called 籌. 籌 literally means ancient “counting sticks”. I thought they were abstract counting units to help recording scores, but now think of it, they might actually be physical sticks. Players after end-game just line them inside the arranged territory, and would know who won without any arithmetic skill.

[Vsotvep]

I like counting by groups of 5 (I’m not very good at it, but I think it’s slightly faster than if I were to count by 2’s):

A little game I made to practice counting quickly

First try a mistake, checked the about page: “Assume no komi”… Alright Here’s my trick to counting: count in shapes of 5, they’re easy to recognise in a glance after a bit of practice: [image] It’s often a combination of ‘blobs’ and ‘hooks’ and ‘T-shapes’ when convenient, also it’s easy to remember multiples of 5. Anyone has other strategy or useful tips on how to count?

[Maharani]

I suppose this isn’t the case for online go servers though? XP

[okonomichiyaki]

Actually I wondered, why not have the black stones larger than white for Go software, since it’s due to an optical illusion with a physical board, does the same illusion happen on a screen? But at least for OGS the code appears to render the stones the same size

I wonder if any other software (KGS, Fox, Sabaki, etc.) does something like this …

[Vsotvep]

I think the illusion works on screens as well, or at least, the paper described here gives no reason why it wouldn’t also work on screens.

Actually, I thought, why not try it, so I made a small test.

1. Go to this site I just made,
2. Use the arrow buttons to make the black stones larger or smaller,
3. When you think the black and white stones have an equal size, click “Show”,
4. Reload the page and try it a few more times,
5. Report back what your average number is.

Probably best done when you sit at some distance to the screen, the illusion is stronger with smaller dots than with larger dots.

I’m consistently off by about 3 pixels, making the black dots too large. If I sit at about 1m far, it actually often goes to 4 or 5, and when I have my eyes defocused, it can become as bad as 12!

[Maharani]

0, 1, 2, 0, 2, 2, 0, 1… I’m not very consistent at this at all! Very surprised at how big the spread is for me.

[Vsotvep]

But, the illusion seems to work, since you’re arriving at positive numbers consistently

[yebellz]

Interesting, playing go without a grid or any apparent stone alignment…

2, 2, 2, 3, 2

[meili_yinhua]

0, 0, -1, 1, 1, -10, 0, 2, 1, 3, -1, 0, -1, 1, 1, -2, 0, 1, 3
very inconsistent, but probably correlates positive (if you discard the -10 outlier). It might be more diminished as I’m trying to look back and forth between stones (rather than going by feel)

[yebellz]

@mekriff

-10

I think -10 is a bug. It seems that if you click show before clicking any up and down arrows, it will always say -10, but then if you click up and down after that it jumps to the correct number.

So I guess one of those times you found that the initial setting was already spot on and clicked show without adjustment.

[meili_yinhua]

@yebellz

So I guess one of those times you found that the initial setting was already spot on and clicked show without adjustment.

I think that’s putting too much faith in my skill

[Vsotvep]

Fixed the bug

---

@mekriff

It might be more diminished as I’m trying to look back and forth between stones

That’s what I’m doing, I’m really trying my best to see them as being “too large”, since I know that they must be too large when I think they’re equal size, yet still the thing works for me.

[Maharani]

But the real question is, have the white stones ever looked too large for anyone on OGS?

[claire_yang]

0 0 0 -2 -1 0 2 -1 -1 1

I think knowing that it is a visual trick lead to expectation and over compensate. If I know I am being tricked, it would change my perception somehow.

[nptialiu]

2 2 3 2 3 2 0 3 2 0 1

[Vsotvep]

@claire_yang

over compensate

Well, the goal is not to try and find the right answer, but to try and find the answer that most appears to have equal size, there should be no “compensating” for trying to find it looking as close to equal in size as possible.

[claire_yang]

After a dozen times after. I now constantly getting -1 0 to 1. And my eyes are telling me they are the same size. Not just compensating, they now look the same to me regardless. And I see my physical black stones larger than white stones.

Give me back my illusion

[teapoweredrobot]

I tend to get 2 to 3 overall on my phone

[Lys]

Trying on my phone (using Chrome) I have the feeling that 2 is still a bit smaller, while 3 is a bit bigger.
I need half steps!

Also it doesn’t work on Samsung browser which applies “dark theme” to everything, even when it isn’t supposed to do so.