![]() StartingPoints Paths Referenced by
|
Estimating The Score
Path: GoodHabits · Prev: ApproachingALifeAndDeathProblemTheRightWay · Next: Practice
Difficulty: Beginner
Keywords: MiddleGame, Strategy
Matt Noonan: A lot of players at about 10 kyu and weaker (some stronger players, too!) seem to never count the score during the game. Counting is very important in a game of Go; in almost every game, strategies must be adjusted to take the score into account. My guess is that some players think that counting a game-in-progress takes too long or is too inaccurate. But practice makes perfect! Here are some techniques I use. Please extend the list! Brute-Force MethodThe most obvious way to count is to simply look at what appears to be "territory-like" and count it up, counting two points for each stone that appears dead as it stands, and then one more point per capture. Of course, the trick is deciding what is and is not likely to stay dead or remain territory. The other main drawback of this method is speed -- it's about as slow as counting up a finished game. Comparative MethodAnother good technique is to compare territories directly. First, mentally pick up the captured stones from the lids of the bowls and place them inside your opponent's territory. The idea is to use the captures to neutralize a territory of roughly the same size, so you won't need to count it manually. Next, do the same for the dead stones on the board. Finally, compare the territories by sight: "White's upper left is about the same as black's lower left, white's center is about 10 points smaller than black's right" and so forth. This method is very fast and can give quite accurate results, especially with some practice.
This is a position from an OngoingGame. The dead black stones (marked) roughly fill up the black territory in the upper and lower right, with a few stones left over. The extra stones are pretty much cancelled by some of the marked dead white stones. The other dead white stones essentially cancel white's small area of influence on the left side. Now, white's bottom side plus white's little blob at the top right is roughly equal to black's right side up to about the 5th line plus some of black's area on the top right, since white has big endgame plays on the right side. Comparing the remaining black center area with white's top shows that white seems to be ahead by a small lead -- maybe 5 or 10 points. This is a lot of description, but the actual mental calculation is very quick, especially at a physical board. I've just added some short tricks that can make it easier (or not) --MortenPahle: Count in two'sYou can often save time by counting in two's instead of each point individually. This way you count pairs of territory, or one dead stone inside territory as 'one, two' etc. Visualising pairs of points is normally quite easy. Count individual territoriesIf you have the memory for it, you can save time by counting and remembering each territory individually, not just the overall score. This way, next time you count, you only have to recount those territories which have changed. Memorisation trick
This was recommended by Steve Fawthrop? on rec.games.go some time ago. (This method cannot be used if you have remembered all the individual territories). Extend territories 'straight' to the board edge.When you first start counting, the borders of the territories are not very well defined and are subject to change. As a first assumption, you can extend the territories straight to the edge in a 'neutral' manner. Don't count territory in the centreNormally there is very little territory in the centre. Unless this territory is really well defined (I.e. completely certain), do not include it in your count. Often the result of a count is that someone is behind (duh:-) and one way of looking at it is that means that I have to gain 15 points in the centre or that means he must gain 15 points in the centre - I can relax a little and play solid moves. I think There is no territory in the center is a controversial statement, so I have added it there. --DieterVerhofstadt Use Area ScoringA refinement of the Comparative Method is to use area scoring. Since TerritoryAndAreaScoring are equivalent, I currently find it easiest to ignore all dead stones, and try to mentally identify which areas are B and which are W, including all live stones and surrounded points. Then I can compare the areas visually. It's not accurate, but it's quick, and +/- 10-20 pts is good enough at my level. Note that you can't do this with territory scoring, because large groups of captured stones count double, which is hard for my brain to do visually. -- DougRidgway? (20k) Path: GoodHabits · Prev: ApproachingALifeAndDeathProblemTheRightWay · Next: Practice This is a copy of the living page "Estimating The Score" at Sensei's Library. (C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0. |