Count much?

[hyperpape]

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.

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.

[daal]

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")?

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.

[entropi]

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.

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.

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?

[Fedya]

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.

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 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.

[hyperpape]

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.

[Mef]

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.

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 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.

In endgame, if you really buckle down, you'd be surprised how many points can be found...One 5pt mistake, two 3 point mistakes, and four 1 point mistakes means a 15 point swing.....and I know at least for myself if it comes down to it, I'd guess I probably make about a dozen (or maybe more) endgame mistakes per game....