Anyone else suffer from the red-eye effect?

[Joelnelsonb]

I wonder if this is a common thing or just a weakness of mine: I continually think that my opponents territory is far larger than my own and I'm usually surprised when I actually count and see how close the game is. Even after the games finished, it sometimes looks like an optical illusion when I compare the areas. This game is one such example. After I let black escape on the left, I thought I was done for given black's top left corner. Likewise, just glancing at the finished board, I'm not sure how it was so close.

[tapir]

There are more dead black stones on the board. They count double, but it is easy to "not see" them at all in visual estimates (just going by territory sizes).

[Joelnelsonb]

There are more dead black stones on the board. They count double, but it is easy to "not see" them at all in visual estimates (just going by territory sizes).

Actually, if you'll notice, we were using area scoring but good thought.

[DJLLAP]

I am no rule expert, but dead stones are dead - no matter the scoring system. In area scoring, instead of removing the stones from the board, and adding a point for each stone you capture, each stone you capture take one of your opponent's stones off the board, subtracting one point from his score. Since there is no penalty for playing inside your own territory, you can physically capture any dead stones without losing any points, so you might as well just remove them from the board without capturing.

[Joelnelsonb]

My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

[Elom]

White has three more stones on the board than black. 3+7.5 = 11.5, which is just under black's territorial gain in the upper right. If you blot that area out and look at the territories, it seems closer.

[Uberdude]

My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

It seems you think there is more difference than there really is between territory and area scoring. In area scoring you are right you don't get a bonus point for a dead stone of your opponents, but unless you decided to pass during the game you and your opponent both played the same number of moves (+-1) so if he played a stone that is now dead and gets zero points for it, but you played a stone that is part of some live group on the board you get one point for it. In other words a net +1 point for you, exactly the same as territory scoring.

[Joelnelsonb]

Yes, of course. The original statement was that I need to remember to count the dead stones as two points and I'm saying that's not how it works. The score is not changed, however, when assessing the board, you visually have to assess differently (dead stones might as well be vacant points).

[topazg]

Yes, of course. The original statement was that I need to remember to count the dead stones as two points and I'm saying that's not how it works. The score is not changed, however, when assessing the board, you visually have to assess differently (dead stones might as well be vacant points).

In reality, it pretty much is how it works. Counting dead stones as 2 points works just fine. Unless you are going to start counting each stone as well, it's the easiest way to count area scoring too. The only time you'll be off (and normally only by a maximum of one) is, as Uberdude says, when there's an unequal number of "real" moves due to passes.

[Uberdude]

Yes, of course. The original statement was that I need to remember to count the dead stones as two points and I'm saying that's not how it works. The score is not changed, however, when assessing the board, you visually have to assess differently (dead stones might as well be vacant points).

As far as I know everyone, even Chinese pros, uses territory-scoring based approach for score estimating during the game even if the counting at the end is area-based. Are you saying you are counting all the live stones on the board as part of your score estimating process just because the ruleset is area counting? That seems like a huge waste of time.

For your game my quick score estimate would be:
- black's top left 4 rows is about same as white's top right.
- white's left is about same as black's g14 plus n12 area
- black's right about same as white's lower right edge
- white's middle about same as black's lower side

So it's basically even and I would need to actually count for more accuracy (and I would count territory style: 1 point for each empty territory and 2 for each dead stone).

(There's actually so few dead stones they don't feature in the eye-balling estimate above)

[tapir]

Yes, of course. The original statement was that I need to remember to count the dead stones as two points and I'm saying that's not how it works. The score is not changed, however, when assessing the board, you visually have to assess differently (dead stones might as well be vacant points).

No, that wasn't the statement, it wasn't even about counting, but whatever.

You seriously ask a question about superficial visual assessment aka "feel for the result" being off, but react like ppl relating to that are unable to count... If your "visual assessment" takes any amount of time, you should indeed just count. I don't know whether ppl actually lean back, glance and compare size of areas by colour (incl. alive stones) instead of roughly comparing territories (as I would regardless of system), but even then uncaptured dead stones could easily trick you. Everyone is able to count that correctly, knowing they are dead, but when just glancing for a second "is there more white or black on the board?", it might be different. At least for me games with a lot of captured and dead stones are usually the ones, where the intuition is off.

[Uberdude]

I think tapir was making the good point that at a glance dead stones can be missed and you might assume they are part of the dame walls. For example those 3 black stones dead in a snapback in the middle left are worth 7 points, but you might just skim over them entirely as no points.

[Inkwolf]

I wonder if this is a common thing or just a weakness of mine: I continually think that my opponents territory is far larger than my own and I'm usually surprised when I actually count and see how close the game is.

Can't be just you. I have occasionally resigned, only to have the score estimator show that I was ahead. Opponents have also surprisingly resigned when they are winning.

In my case, I believe that my opinion of how far ahead/behind I am depends partly on how much control over the game I think I've been having, rather than entirely relying on visuals. It is sometimes surprising to win when you've felt kicked around, or to lose when you feel you've been calling the shots through most of the game.

[Joelnelsonb]

I often times look at a finished board, knowing the final score and just think "how on earth is this bigger than that???" The "red-eye effect" is what it's called in the book "How not to play Go".

[xed_over]

My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

No, they don't count for nothing, even in area-based games. They are each, one less live stone on the board that your opponent still has on the board. So, that means that there are more actual white stones on the board then. Living stones on the board count toward the area score (just like prisoners count against territory score) -- it all equals out (like algebra; A+B=C or C-B=A).