83.145.241.33: **Trying to understand point-counting based on this page... and failing**
(2008-09-15 15:31) [#5065]

Anon.: Could we get an early picture example marking what to count as points, or a reference to a page explaining this? I'm not sure if the difficulty is just that the methods seem to use (absolute) numbers that are not comparable and it's not clear which ones are and which ones aren't, but I find that I'm sorely needing a point of reference to at least decide if that's the case.

As it is I can't seem to figure out any of the methods without already knowing how to count points. I can only understand fully enclosed areas from the final score-countings, even preferrably with dames filled in, while most examples here are more or less open-ended. Where does one territory stop and the other begin?

The brute force method would be a good point to place examples to illustrate which parts are points for black, which points for white, include some double points for prisoners if they can be easily visually included (and if I understood *that* part correctly), and importantly, which "undecided points" are just ignored in the count. It might be that the topic of undecided points is a page in its own merit, since it implies identifying moves which are big.

I've never counted properly, and recently it seems I have serious problems estimating scoring right in the presence of large dead groups and large prisoner counts. For relearning intuitive estimates, I need a solid basis in absolute, correct numbers...

xela: **Re: Trying to understand point-counting based on this page... and failing**
(2008-09-15 15:54) [#5066]

1. The main page contains two links to the counting lessons on Steve Fawthrop's site--you might find them useful along these lines.

2. If you can work out "absolute, correct numbers" then you are much better at this that most other people on this site! For most players below professional level, counting is a useful estimate, nothing more.

70.53.51.91: **Re: Trying to understand point-counting based on this page... and failing**
(2008-09-15 21:29) [#5067]

Karl Knechtel: The reason it's called "estimating the score" in the page title is that it's an *estimate*. You count as a territory the points which look like they will probably be included in the final territory, and exclude the points which look like they will probably get taken away by fighting. For dealing with large but fairly open areas, we have *heuristics*.

The idea "For relearning intuitive estimates, I need a solid basis in absolute, correct numbers..." is nonsense, for the reason that if absolute, correct numbers were possible, making an "estimate" would be meaningless.