One of my Go activities while L19 was down was to work through how to use area counting rather than territory counting to calculate endgame values. I had always guessed that this might be easier than using territory counting because there are fewer things to keep track of, but had never actually worked it out. My findings are presented in the following blog posts. I have pretty much switched over to this method of calculating endgame values now; the benefits and drawbacks are presented in the posts, and for me the benefits are generally well worth it.
Endgame values with area counting
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6274
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: Endgame values with area counting
Here are comments on part 1.
You study area deiri counting. Usually, one would use area miai counting.
For area miai counting, I (and others before me) have stated the principle "Usually, an area move value is 1 larger than a territory move value."
Unsurprisingly, for area deiri counting, you need "is 2 larger", wherefore you subtract by 2 to calibrate your area move values for area deiri counting to those of territory deiri counting. If you did not want to calibrate your area move values to territory deiri counting, you could omit subtracting 2 and simply use area move values as they are: calibrated to area deiri counting.
You argue that, for the endgame, area counting can be more difficult than territory counting. However, if you calibrated to area deiri counting instead of territory deiri counting, you might instead argue that territory counting would appear more difficult than area counting.
You proclaim a formula of the type V_A = term - 2. While I understand why you are doing this, in maths we need justification. From what is the -2 derived and why is it exactly -2? You use the -2 as if it would be an axiomatic number out of nowhere. Rather, you might have started with a still unknown parameter, say D, transformed algebraically and only then discovered that D = -2. Then it would not be "magic" but maths! You put your discovery of the -2 at the start of your algebraic study. Instead, it ought to have emerged at the end! Alternatively, declare the presupposition D = -2, state the gote conjecture V_A + D = V_T, do the algebra, find truth and thereby confirm that D has been chosen well.
"Black will own either 2 1/2 or 0 points; 2 * 2 1/2 - 2 = 3." was a bit rough to read because the reader has to understand that you omit the calculation step 2 1/2 - 0 = 2 1/2 before inserting that in the 2 * 2 1/2 term.
I disapprove your use of the word "gain". Gain is the term for a move's change to the counts, comparing the count before the move to the count after the move. You use "gain" carelessly with a different meaning, which is not even directly related to the terms you write. You want to express with too few words what your terms express.
EDIT: teiri -> miai
You study area deiri counting. Usually, one would use area miai counting.
For area miai counting, I (and others before me) have stated the principle "Usually, an area move value is 1 larger than a territory move value."
Unsurprisingly, for area deiri counting, you need "is 2 larger", wherefore you subtract by 2 to calibrate your area move values for area deiri counting to those of territory deiri counting. If you did not want to calibrate your area move values to territory deiri counting, you could omit subtracting 2 and simply use area move values as they are: calibrated to area deiri counting.
You argue that, for the endgame, area counting can be more difficult than territory counting. However, if you calibrated to area deiri counting instead of territory deiri counting, you might instead argue that territory counting would appear more difficult than area counting.
You proclaim a formula of the type V_A = term - 2. While I understand why you are doing this, in maths we need justification. From what is the -2 derived and why is it exactly -2? You use the -2 as if it would be an axiomatic number out of nowhere. Rather, you might have started with a still unknown parameter, say D, transformed algebraically and only then discovered that D = -2. Then it would not be "magic" but maths! You put your discovery of the -2 at the start of your algebraic study. Instead, it ought to have emerged at the end! Alternatively, declare the presupposition D = -2, state the gote conjecture V_A + D = V_T, do the algebra, find truth and thereby confirm that D has been chosen well.
"Black will own either 2 1/2 or 0 points; 2 * 2 1/2 - 2 = 3." was a bit rough to read because the reader has to understand that you omit the calculation step 2 1/2 - 0 = 2 1/2 before inserting that in the 2 * 2 1/2 term.
I disapprove your use of the word "gain". Gain is the term for a move's change to the counts, comparing the count before the move to the count after the move. You use "gain" carelessly with a different meaning, which is not even directly related to the terms you write. You want to express with too few words what your terms express.
EDIT: teiri -> miai
