I am currently collating information from three recent Japanese books with a view to presenting a mini-essay on the way pros "count", which is rather different from the way amateurs do it. What set me off was that one of the books gave the first presentation of the principles I have seen in book form. Previously I had heard about it from several pros but only orally.

I'm not ready to do that yet, but in the interim there was a very interesting sidelight in one of the books - a book I think may have been mentioned here already. It's called 至高の決断, which means Decision-making at the Highest Level. The book is nominally by Komatsu Hideki, but he got three fellow pros (Yamashita Keigo, Iyama Yuta and Yoda Norimoto) independently to give their choices for next move in 11 different opening positions. They each do so at length, explaining their choices strategically and tactically, and in the course of this they obviously reveal how they think. As is often the case with the very best experts, they are able to do this with great clarity and simplicity. Typically each might spend a half dozen or so pages (with diagrams) on just one move. As another, unusual, measure of how deep they go, copyright in the book is not vested in Komatsu but in the trio of collaborators!

I was especially interested in this book because when I was working on my books of the Go Seigen ten-game matches, in which I pulled together very many pro commentaries on the same game, I was astonished at how much pro opinion can differ. Komatsu declared himself equally surprised in his own project. I assume the book has also gone down well with the Japanese public because it just has gone to a large-type reprint, and that is the version I have (ISBN 978-4-8399-5603-5). I regard it is a very good book.

By way of review, here is the first position considered.



The games are given to the pros without any identification beyond giving the komi and next to play (White here). Introducing this one to the reader, Komatsu said komi was 5.5 and the position of the triangled stone was a little unusual.

Yamashita remarked that if the komi is 5.5 he would want Black, did not recognise the game or the players, and said the only focus could be on the upper right. (I won't give his choice of move as that would be a major spoiler if you buy the book with just 11 positions).

Iyama said he would rather be White here and the reason was the odd Black shape in the upper right. But if the triangled stone had been at A he would have chosen Black. He too did not recognise the game.

Yoda said he didn't think he would like to be Black here, but likewise said he would prefer Black if the triangled stone was at A. He felt the power relationship in the upper right determined the next move, and noted that since White had many forcing moves he could trample on the upper side with some degree of impunity.

So we see that some pros at least decide who is leading not by counting 1, 2, 3... (in fact they specifically say such counting is either impossible or useless in other cases) but by making comparisons: Black leads because he has given a smaller komi than is now usual, or White leads because only Black has made one questionable-shape move.

Now what is especially interesting here is that (1) there is far more aji in the corner than you might expect (in one line White can live in the corner), and (2) the player making the supposedly dodgy triangled move is somebody famous for making good shape.

If we look at statistics, the joseki with A has appeared 41 times in the GoGoD database, whereas the line with the triangled stone has appeared 13 times (and the game here was the first example). Yamashita, who did not mention the "unusual" shape, is among those who have played it since.

It is also interesting that Komatsu and a couple of his colleagues sensed the opening was unusual, agreeing with the statistics in other words, but did not recognise the game, even though it is not very old, was played at a very high level, and was counted as a masterpiece for the winner (again I am trying to avoiding spoilers). From a practical, pro point of view that may make sense, of course.

Furthermore, and this is relevant to a different current thread, the corner opening began with a high two-space approach by White against Black's komoku, and Black responded with a knight's move pincer. Komatsu said this was "a new pattern at the time and it became a talking point." That's rubbish, frankly. It was fairly popular in Meiji times and was used even by Honinbo Shuei. We can infer from this that Komatsu is one of those who has never studied Shuei's games. Personally I would further conclude that this is his loss. But that doesn't detract from what is a significantly new and important book.

There is a Kindle version as well. I've been meaning to do a similar review for a while, since this is one of my favorite books.　　This was written 8 years ago when Iyama was still 7 dan. The ages of the players are also separated by 11-12 years, so you got opinions of a young player, someone in prime of career, and someone a bit after.

Do they 1, 2, 3 count any of the 11 positions in the book? Or say anything like this shimari is about 12 points, that moyo needs to get more than 25 to be even? I remember being struck by Nie Weiping's use of explicit 1 2 3 counting of territory in opening positions (admittedly a bit later than this one, maybe move ~30) in his book (the one with the communist introduction).

I'm aware of that after Matt Cocke pulled that off against me!

Does it show subtlety or randomness?
I'm sure that musings about the opening make for the best book sales. I'm less sure amateurs can draw anything useful from it.

I know we have these discussions a lot but for me the opening is the most beautiful part of a game. It allows me to be creative and to set the tone (according to my style) of the game. The opening is the most "me" in a game of Go.

Furthermore, if I review my lost games, most of my mistakes have their roots in the opening.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

During the opening (and middle game), counting / positionally judge territory is both possible and useful - but the position's territory count is not the only aspect relevant for describing an opening position. Other relevant aspects include influence, aji, options, strategic choices etc. The book authors should have written something in this direction instead of declaring counting to be impossible or useless.

From memory, it's mostly an evaluation if any moves ended up out of place and comparison of value in that way. They don't try to do a full board evaluation with so much empty. It's been a couple years since I went through this book, but I don't remember any players trying to do a real time count.