I played a game today, and after the fuseki I thought I was behind, but something possessed me to count, and when I did, I discovered that I was in fact ahead. It really helped me to decide on my next moves, and I went on to win rather easily.

As you might guess, I don't count very often, and often have no idea who is ahead until the result is displayed (on KGS). How about you? Is it your habit to count or not to count?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I generally don't count in online games (but I should). I still seem to know wether I'm ahead or not, but probably not with a 100% accuracy. My game results are generally close to what I guesstimate in the late midgame.

I sometimes count some territories to help this estimate, though.

In tournament games, I try to count more seriously, but it's hard to do during the middlegame, so many "territories" can still be invaded, generally when I don't expect it.

I count only in tournament games and only if I feel it's a close game. If there is at least one dead group, I count wrong. Otherwise, I may occasionally count correctly. But then the correctness of my decision based on the counting result is randomly distributed.
All in all, I can say my counting is as good as "I don't count".

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

It takes a fair amount of practice before your count is meaningful. For a long time, my count was accurate to +/- 20, i.e., horrible. Nowadays, it's usually within +/- 5. I went through a faze of fanatically counting, and I don't do it so much anymore. But I think all that practice improved my estimation without counting-- I don't *need* to count as many positions as I used to.

Edit: and, annoyingly, when I'm counting now, many times it's to evaluate the result of ignoring a ko threat and winning the ko (or the other way around), which requires reading ahead and then counting various areas of the board multiple ways.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

what do you mean by counting?? does evaluating position during fuseki count as counting?
if so, on a seious game i count more than 30 times.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I'm similar...If it's a serious tournament game (with time controls that allow), I will count several times trying to be as accurate as I can, and adjust accordingly. When I play an online game, I may do a rough "approximate with rectangles" count once or twice trying to get to +- 5 points resolution, repeat as often as time allows. That tells me if it's a close game, I can relax, or I need to try something drastic. If it's a close game I'll go back and do a more precise count.

Counting not only helps me get a clearer idea of what's going on on the board, but also helps me take the game I'm playing more seriously and make less blunders. It also helps you save time by resigning games you've already lost but can only be determined by counting. I always try to count a few times when I play online.

A question that should be added: How long do you need for your best-resolution count?

I count many times in serious games but get carried away in online games far too often. While I count fast enough to count in byoyomi (20 moves / 5 minutes), I can't keep and modify the result and have to count again after some moves. That makes continuous counting impossible and counting in japanese style byoyomi difficult.

It takes me two to four 30 second byo-yomi periods to count, if I don't lose track partway through...

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

I pretty much never do global counts. I do some local counting in the endgame and during ko-fights. But why would I count globally? It's not like I'd say "no" to a fight, even when ahead.

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

Yeah, "counting in the fuseki"... no way. I do count in the end game, though, which is starting to allow me to play more cautiously.

actually i think counting in fuseki is one way to sharpen your evaluating skill.
i do that on every unexpected move if it is a serious game.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Yeah, sure it does. In fact, having observed you do this is one of the things that made me try it. In the case of my game today, the evaluation showed that my "feeling" was wrong. My count may not have been accurate, but for the first time I experienced what everybody always says about counting, that it can help you decide your strategy. For me quite an eye-opener.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

IMO counting in the endgame is kind of like closing the gate after the chickens are out. There's nowhere to create confusion and try to get more points, so even if you're behind you can't do much about it.

Do people who recommend counting during fuseki do it by intuition (i.e., you just sort of intuit which territory is definite, maybe, and potential, and then count it), or by some sort of algorithm (i.e., "every intersection within three spaces of one of my stones is potential territory")?

Maybe at your level. At mine, both me and my opponents are typically losing point even into the small endgame plays, but I can also play a somewhat better endgame if I really focus.

If the game doesn't look close, I'll spend a little bit less effort. I'm not advocating sloppy play, but sometimes it's not worth agonizing over two points if you can tell there's a significant gap in the score.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I think this is a good question, and although I am unqualified to answer it, I'd like to keep the ball rolling.

What I did was just to count definite and probable points. Sure, the first problem with this is that "definite" and "probable" are pretty relative - but - they are relative for both players. My definite territory is just as likely to disappear as that of my opponent. The next problem is that it doesn't take into account thickness or influence. Well, that's the idea of just counting current points. By seeing for example that I am ahead in points, I can just think about how much my opponent will need to gain from his influence to catch up, and then plan accordingly.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I am also far from being qualified to answer that question. But here is what I do:

I feel counting during fuseki requires so much experience and knowledge, that it is useless at kyu or low dan levels (this is just my feeling and is not based on any information).

Therefore, during fuseki I try to keep track of each move (or each exchange). What did this exchange bring to me or to my opponent. Like that I try to keep track of some sort of "karma". Obviously, each move has to be evaluated in relation with the rest of the board which makes this approach also difficult but I still feel more comfortable with this approach. Who says go is an easy game anyway?

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

If it's a game that looks really close, then yes, those points can make a difference.

However, I find in most of my games that by the time I'm able to get a fairly accurate count, it's too late to be able to do much to change the outcome either way. There is the rare game that's within 2-3 points during the endgame, however, and if I think the score is that close, I'll spend far too much time trying to figure out how to keep sente.

As for me, I try to get an accurate count by doing half-counting; that is, seeing if I can get to 181 points and, if only it looks like I don't have very many points, seeing if my opponent is the one getting to 181. The latter happened to me just last night, when my opponent dropped a comment about there not being anything worth 20 points on the board any longer.

It's a sliding scale of inaccuracy. If I can't trust that my count is any better than five points of accurate, I'll play all out so long as I think the score is within 10. If my count is regularly off by ten, I will try my hardest so long as I think I'm within 15.

I'm not at all good at counting, but I can still use that to tell myself that nothing can be done in some cases.

_________________
Occupy Babel!