Centre-based Coordinate System?

[Tami]

The idea of a centre-based system has already been proposed, ca 2000, in an article in the British Go Association journal. Points were described by compass points with respect to tengen as N5,E3 or S2, W8 etc. It didn't catch on.

Also, I believe the idea can be found in much, much older sources too, although I cannot cite any offhand.

[Fedya]

I think Loons should have to use polar coordinates first and then get back to us on the practicality of a tengen-based coordinate system.

I'll start at pi/4, 6*sqrt(2). Or at least, I think that's where I'd start. I don't want to think about what my next move would be if I'm not playing san-ren-sei.

[Loons]

I think Loons should have to use polar coordinates first and then get back to us on the practicality of a tengen-based coordinate system.

I'll start at pi/4, 6*sqrt(2). Or at least, I think that's where I'd start. I don't want to think about what my next move would be if I'm not playing san-ren-sei.

I began typing this joke several times myself, but my thought was fundamentally serious so I resisted. Thank-you Fedya.

If we keep using battleship coordinates, can I endorse a rule that when a group dies we must intone "You sunk my battleship!"

[Tryss]

I'd rather name each point with an original name.

"Pig ! Caravan ! Here a play at circus is a great tesuji !"

Plus, it would be easier to remember the games with a memory palace technique ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci)

[RBerenguel]

I'd rather name each point with an original name.

"Pig ! Caravan ! Here a play at circus is a great tesuji !"

Plus, it would be easier to remember the games with a memory palace technique ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci)

361 locations would get tricky (fun fact: googling for memory palace usually gives an entry from my blog close to 1st page results). Much easier to use a PA method (person-action) for the coordinates. From my (personal) PA for 00-99, 4-16 would be Charles Dickens riding a motorcycle on the highway, for instance.

[snorri]

The system I prefer, described in this old post is rotational. It preserves the essence of the normal naming scheme. To me, a 3-4 point has a kind of preferred orientation in each quadrant, namely, slightly clockwise of an imaginary line going from the center to the corner. The other one is the 4-3 point. This fixation is perhaps idiosyncratic, but due to seeing old games that start like this:

$$B all 3-4 points
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . |
$$ | . . x , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 , . . . . . , . . . . . , x . . |
$$ | . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B all 3-4 points
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . |
$$ | . . x , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 , . . . . . , . . . . . , x . . |
$$ | . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The mirror points 'x' are, to me, 4-3 points. But that's just the way I think and I can't claim it is superior. Although, C4 symmetry has its perks---if you think about watching someone else's OTB game, it shouldn't matter if you are looking over white's shoulder or black's or from the side, right?

[Elom0]

I am not sure what is to be gained by changing the coordinate system. What is the advantage, other than changing things for the sake of changing things?

For humans:
I really think that the existing system is much easier. For a few reasons:

• a1 is easier to say that "-10,-10" or whatever. This is why we have such letter-number system rather than using the same cartesian axes but with only numbers instead, so a1 could be "1,1". And by the way, both systems are conceptually identical, except we move the origin to tengen rather than having it in lower left corner.
• the origin of the system (a1) is always visible, while it is sometimes hard to pinpoint tengen in late positions. And this can make it really hard to count, not to mention being mistake-prone when writing down the move coordinates. We make enough mistakes as it is, methinks.
• people are used to counting along the edges - it is easier that way, than counting along some (sometimes covered) center-lines. At least, conceptually. In practice, you could write the numbers along the edges just like the present letters and numbers, but then - what would really be accomplished? We would be in the exact same place but with different labels.
• mistakes are less obvious and so harder to fix. When somebody record a move as "12", you have no clue if he forgot a comma (so it should be "1,2") or if he forgot a whole number (and it should be "12,x" or even "x,12".) With the present system, when you see "12" you know that the letter was not recorded, and this makes things easier to fix. In the present system, the missing move is one of at most 19 candidate moves. Under the newly proposed system, the number of candidate moves is almost twice as large.
• there are many boards and other equipment (like software, or game-recording pads) already in existence with the present coordinate system. Reprinting/rebranding/recoding/reworking it all will take ages, resources, and valuable inner peace. Or we will have two systems side-by-side for a while, which is not good. Why is that needed?
• and so on... I could probably think of some more reasons, but you get the drift

For computers:
It takes a one-liner and a fraction of a micro-second to recalculate from one system to the other, so also not sure what is to be gained by switching. Are there any reasons to think that either the computer programs or the databases are obstructed by the system we have? And besides, how programs internalize their data has usually nothing to do with the way the data is presented to the user.

PS>
I think that, generally speaking, when you think about introducing changes to any (existing) system, there should be a clear reasons and a clearly defined problem that the changes are supposed to fix. And besides, since each change also introduces at least a short-term problem and cost, this cost should be less than the original problem which is getting fixed.

What problem are we fixing by switching to a different notation system?
Are people complaining they cannot possibly play Go because they can't understand where the point "a1" is, while they could easily figure out "-10,-10"???

@Bantari
I can't help but point out neither 12 nor 10 would be on a 19x19 board. So nothing but single-digit numbers for coordinates on normal board sizes would be an advantage.

Ah, but you don't have "nothing but single-digit coordinates". In the present system you go from 1..9 and then continue with 10..19. In the new system you would go from 9..0 and then continue with -1...-9. Either way you need a second "sign" - be it a '1' or an '-'. You simply cannot represent 19 lines with only 10 symbols, you need some kind of addition, either more symbols or more (decimal?) places.

As for you pointing out that there would be no 12, point taken.
But (almost) the same could have been said about somebody writing '9' or '3'. There is still less definition to that under new system than under old.

I was gripped by this while writing java code to rotate boards, so. I do think it is a more elegant and symmetrical system, and go is to me a very elegant and symmetrical game. Compared to labelling one of the axis with letters a-t (except for i, most of the time) and the highest magnitude number possible. I would still put coordinates along the edges of the board, were I to make one. Hey, I should.

As I said, for computers you use the systems which are best for what they do, translating from system to system is a trivial matter in this case. I can imagine a single program could use multiple different systems to internalize the data, depending on the task at hand, and then translating from one to the other for the clarity of algorithms.

In your example, rotation of boards, I can see where the digints-only tengen-based system would be more efficient and much easier to code. But then - have a simple (hard-coded even) conversion matrix and you can move back-and-forth between the system in a blink. I would assume that some less trivial tasks, like reading/writing existing sgf files, could be done much easier if you used the existing system. Just to see a different example.

The idea of a centre-based system has already been proposed, ca 2000, in an article in the British Go Association journal. Points were described by compass points with respect to tengen as N5,E3 or S2, W8 etc. It didn't catch on.

Also, I believe the idea can be found in much, much older sources too, although I cannot cite any offhand.

Centre-based coordinate systems are better for transferability between games. Also:

It's possible to avoid the negative signs and therefore two-sign representation per coordinate entirely, and simultaneusly avoid confusion from mistakes in typographing, by using different numeral systems for each axis. Mayan to the left, Egyptian to the east, Chinese to the north and Roman to the south (and maybe for 3d add Kaktovik and Cherokee). And of course when programming have a process that converts these into western Hindu-Arabic and multiplies the Mayan and the Roman by the negative.

[Elom0]

The system I prefer, described in this old post is rotational. It preserves the essence of the normal naming scheme. To me, a 3-4 point has a kind of preferred orientation in each quadrant, namely, slightly clockwise of an imaginary line going from the center to the corner. The other one is the 4-3 point. This fixation is perhaps idiosyncratic, but due to seeing old games that start like this:

$$B all 3-4 points
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . |
$$ | . . x , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 , . . . . . , . . . . . , x . . |
$$ | . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B all 3-4 points
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . |
$$ | . . x , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 , . . . . . , . . . . . , x . . |
$$ | . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The mirror points 'x' are, to me, 4-3 points. But that's just the way I think and I can't claim it is superior. Although, C4 symmetry has its perks---if you think about watching someone else's OTB game, it shouldn't matter if you are looking over white's shoulder or black's or from the side, right?

This looks like a standard centre-based coordinate system with:
Backwards-count, the centre is at 10 and you countdown to 1
and Polarity-dependant axis order, if the product of the axes is positive, state the x-coordinate first, but if it's negative, state the Y coordinate first.

My opinion on Zero (and infinite series) differs from most mainstream mathematicians. Just a warning in case anyone wants to go there, hehe

[Elom0]

. . . What is the advantage, other than changing things for the sake of changing things? . .

. . . PS>
I think that, generally speaking, when you think about introducing changes to any (existing) system, there should be a clear reasons and a clearly defined problem that the changes are supposed to fix. And besides, since each change also introduces at least a short-term problem and cost, this cost should be less than the original problem which is getting fixed.

What problem are we fixing by switching to a different notation system?
Are people complaining they cannot possibly play Go because they can't understand where the point "a1" is, while they could easily figure out "-10,-10"???

I would have to profoundly disagree! Small errors from different areas of a field can accumulate over time to become large-scale problems, especially when concerning fundamental rulesets or notations! Therefore, even if it's not clear a change would be better one should still change, because the benefits may not be obvious until later on or in a more complex situation--especially, again, in the case of ruleset or notation fundamentals. Saying one is changing things for the sake of changing things is cry one with an emotional or irrational allegiance to 'the way things were/was/has been', like I sometimes tend to have. For those who are outside the field, the same emotional sense given by familiarity for those in the field is instead given by is given by efficiency or seamlessness. So ironically, the exact same feeling that causes one not to want to change to a more seamless system also causes an outsider to not have that feeling. It wouldn't be unrealistic for many people who otherwise be into go when they see it pass it up because they just didn't get the right 'feeling'. Maybe on a large board, psycologically justifiable coordinate system gives a better feeling and makes the go community seem more trustworthy than a coordinate sytem with too many arbitary elements, and that is likely far more important than how easy it is to say when speaking if beginners randomly decide they want to play blindfold go.

[theo]

In a nutshell, nice idea, but not worth the transition costs from the current system.
One more point: the coordinate system is anyway not as important in Go, as often the coordinates are communicated graphically. That's different to chess, where the "kifu" consists mostly of coordinates instead of a graphic!