Life In 19x19

DrStraw wrote: it is hard to believe that you can reach a solid 4d on KGS without being able to count.

why? I knew a dan level player who couldn't count. He had to have his dad count the score for him (he was only 6 years old at the time).

DrStraw wrote:As you don't give your KGS handle is it hard to check, but it is hard to believe that you can reach a solid 4d on KGS without being able to count. Was it gained through a large number of blitz games won on time? If you really do have a solid 4d there then it is a sad reflection on the KGS rating system.

I have many accounts, but each is at least 4d (I don't only play blitz). I'm WBaduk 7d, btw.

I wish there were counting problem books. Some of the positional judgement books have some problems, but it would be nice to have a tsumego type book with the board position on one page and the answer with the number and squares that were counted on the next. I know counting positions is sort of voodoo, but I think there should be enough positions that are figured out at the amateur level to fill a book or two.

SmoothOper wrote:I wish there were counting problem books. Some of the positional judgement books have some problems, but it would be nice to have a tsumego type book with the board position on one page and the answer with the number and squares that were counted on the next. I know counting positions is sort of voodoo, but I think there should be enough positions that are figured out at the amateur level to fill a book or two.

Every game you play or watch is a counting problem surely?

Boidhre wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:I wish there were counting problem books. Some of the positional judgement books have some problems, but it would be nice to have a tsumego type book with the board position on one page and the answer with the number and squares that were counted on the next. I know counting positions is sort of voodoo, but I think there should be enough positions that are figured out at the amateur level to fill a book or two.

Every game you play or watch is a counting problem surely?

Yeah, it's kind of like tesuji though, it's one thing to make them up by yourself, it's another to learn from the masters.

SmoothOper wrote:

Boidhre wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:I wish there were counting problem books. Some of the positional judgement books have some problems, but it would be nice to have a tsumego type book with the board position on one page and the answer with the number and squares that were counted on the next. I know counting positions is sort of voodoo, but I think there should be enough positions that are figured out at the amateur level to fill a book or two.

Every game you play or watch is a counting problem surely?

Yeah, it's kind of like tesuji though, it's one thing to make them up by yourself, it's another to learn from the masters.

But isn't the issue is that you shouldn't count your games as a kyu player like a pro would count a pro game because what's definite, probable and potential territory will be quite different given the same board in both?

Boidhre wrote:But isn't the issue is that you shouldn't count your games as a kyu player like a pro would count a pro game because what's definite, probable and potential territory will be quite different given the same board in both?

The way I was taught to count is this:

Stuff that cannot be reduced - that you have read cannot be reduced - is to be counted as territory. The rest is influence. Count sente reductions. Count gote reductions minus 1 point (you should be able to make up at least 1 point elsewhere on the board with sente).

So, how much is this corner worth for black?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . O O O . O .
$$ | . X X O O . .
$$ | . . X X X O .
$$ | . . . . X O .
$$ | . . . . X O .
$$ | . . . . . a .
$$ ----------------[/go]

Whether you are a pro or amateur, this is a 12 point corner.

Now, maybe your opponent won't reduce you in sente? Maybe you'll get to reduce his side by playing at 'a'. It doesn't matter. If your opponent can play the move in sente later you can't count it as points. You need to subtract 2 points from your corner.

What about this position? How many points is this corner worth?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . O .
$$ | . . O O . . .
$$ | . . X , . X .
$$ | . . . X . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ ----------------[/go]

I don't know. I'm not good enough at reading and end-game to say for sure. This is where professional and amateur counting will differ. A pro could say exactly how many points black is guaranteed in that corner. Most amateurs would likely give a poor estimate one way or the other.

My guess? It's worth 6 points assuming white doesn't have any stones on the bottom side right now.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ | . . . . . O .
$$ | . 5 O O . . .
$$ | 9 1 X 3 6 X .
$$ | 7 2 4 X . . .
$$ | 8 0 C C . . .
$$ | C C C C . . .
$$ ----------------[/go]

That's probably off by pro standards. But if I could count like a pro I don't see why I shouldn't. That would just be more accurate. Why should I be happy over or under-counting territory if I can know exactly what the right value is? A problem book on counting with professional numbers could be fantastic.

If you apply your counting advice to life and death, does it still work? It is true that "what's definite, probable and potential life will be quite different given the same board," but if you know the pro status - the true status - you cannot be worse off.

moyoaji wrote:Whether you are a pro or amateur, this is a 12 point corner.

I'm not sure I agree with your logic on that one. It will depend on whose move it is and whether the hane are double sente or not.

moyoaji wrote:If you apply your counting advice to life and death, does it still work? It is true that "what's definite, probable and potential life will be quite different given the same board," but if you know the pro status - the true status - you cannot be worse off.

Edit: I phrased that badly. Knowing the perfect sequence to a corner L&D problem is fine but at various levels you can very much expect people not to find this line and life and death is very much not decided. I don't mean that knowing what a pro would count a board as is a bad thing, just that the count would be problematic because it assumes playing ability that isn't there (e.g. no invasion there works for pros but in a kyu game this mightn't be true and you need to count differently or in a weak sdk game that area won't be reduced but in a dan game it's very likely to be, etc).

Knowing what a 9p could expect to get as black in one of my games is interesting but doesn't really help me that much because neither I nor my opponent will play anywhere close to optimally.

oren wrote:I'm not sure I agree with your logic on that one. It will depend on whose move it is and whether the hane are double sente or not.

Everything I've ever read on counting from pros (Kageyama in "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go" Chapter 5) to dan amatuers (Joshua Lee AGA 5 dan counting lecture and Clossius KGS 4 dan counting video) says that you should be conservative when counting your territory. Assume your opponent gets all reductions and assume that sente reductions are played when they are actually sente (and that your opponent doesn't suddenly hane under randomly at move 30). You assume your opponent doesn't make some sort of mistake and assume reasonable end-game.

It is not that that corner couldn't be worth 14 points. And it might only be worth 11 if white gets the gote reduction as well. But when estimating how much territory something is worth every resource I know of says "subtract possible sente reductions." The "gote minus 1" is something I've heard in a few places, like the Clossius vid, but it seems like a solid idea. Sente in late yose is worth 1 point so unless there are only dame and half-point kos to be fought then you will make up at least 1 point elsewhere.

Boidhre wrote:Knowing what a 9p could expect to get as black in one of my games is interesting but doesn't really help me that much because neither I nor my opponent will play anywhere close to optimally.

If the book explains the optimal end-game for the corner (which I would hope it would) then why couldn't you play it optimally?

moyoaji wrote:If the book explains the optimal end-game for the corner (which I would hope it would) then why couldn't you play it optimally?

Because the stones won't be in the right places when I play?

moyoaji wrote:Everything I've ever read on counting from pros (Kageyama in "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go" Chapter 5) to dan amatuers (Joshua Lee AGA 5 dan counting lecture and Clossius KGS 4 dan counting video) says that you should be conservative when counting your territory.

Yeah, I don't want to get into competition of sources, but I've been going by O Meien's book on counting where in such a simple example, it's easy to get an exact score if you know white's position on the outside.

If white is solid, the conservative answer may very well be 10-11 points and not 12.

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =15&t=3008

Boidhre wrote:Because the stones won't be in the right places when I play?

By this logic life and death books are also useless because the exact life and death problems rarely come up in games. The same with tesuji book. I've played out enough false tesuji when just 1 stone was off from my tesuji book to know how far I have to read for some tesuji to actually work (for example, you need to read about 11 moves to know if the "cross-cut" tesuji is going to work for sure).

There are many common end-game positions where yose is left to be played. If you can extrapolate proper life and death tactics from life and death books you can extrapolate proper end-game from a yose/counting book.

oren wrote:Yeah, I don't want to get into competition of sources, but I've been going by O Meien's book on counting where in such a simple example, it's easy to get an exact score if you know white's position on the outside.

If white is solid, the conservative answer may very well be 10-11 points and not 12.

These are all mid-game counting resources. The purpose of counting in the earlier mid-game is to give a good estimate because you can't know for sure what will happen around those stones. Yet you should still be counting, even before the end-game arrives, to know what you need to do in the mid-game.

Yose is a different matter. Obviously if the exact end-game position is known then the entire optimal yose for both players can be mapped out.

moyoaji wrote:

Boidhre wrote:Because the stones won't be in the right places when I play?

By this logic life and death books are also useless because the exact life and death problems rarely come up in games. The same with tesuji book. I've played out enough false tesuji when just 1 stone was off from my tesuji book to know how far I have to read for some tesuji to actually work (for example, you need to read about 11 moves to know if the "cross-cut" tesuji is going to work for sure).

There are many common end-game positions where yose is left to be played. If you can extrapolate proper life and death tactics from life and death books you can extrapolate proper end-game from a yose/counting book.

I'm mostly thinking about midgame positions. Mainly the issue I see is that counting depends heavily on your reading ability, if I think an opponent's group is alive because the tesuji that removes its eyes is "invisible" to me then this will affect the count no? I don't think it'd be very useful for either of us to sit down with a pro-level life and death book and stare at them for a while, why would it be any different with counting problems?

That and, doesn't "improving your counting" once you get past the basic level of being able to count and remember intersections just come down to reading and we already have tons of problems dealing with this?

*shrugs*

Boidhre wrote:I'm mostly thinking about midgame positions. Mainly the issue I see is that counting depends heavily on your reading ability, if I think an opponent's group is alive because the tesuji that removes its eyes is "invisible" to me then this will affect the count no? I don't think it'd be very useful for either of us to sit down with a pro-level life and death book and stare at them for a while, why would it be any different with counting problems?

That and, doesn't "improving your counting" once you get past the basic level of being able to count and remember intersections just come down to reading and we already have tons of problems dealing with this?

*shrugs*

Such a book would not need to contain problems that involve professional level life and death. You can take a look at this lecture to see a counting problem from one of Cho Chikun's games. It is interesting and not hard to figure out once you know the basics of the end-game in the problem. Problems like this could make for a good counting book.