It seems to be more efficient for humans to count territory instead of area during the game. I've heard that even chinese professionals save time by estimating the score during the game by counting territory japanese style and correcting for stones captured (you have to remember captures, which is not that hard even for amateur dan players). Then late in the endgame it will become clear if there will be an odd number of dame, allowing the player playing the first dame and the last dame a small gain compared to japanese scoring. Dave
________________________________ Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: di 16-9-2008 19:47 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules I bet with practice and using Chinese scoring, you could very rapidly calculate the score without touching the board. In fact, if I were trying to become a dan level players I would think that in Chinese I would want to be able to quickly "sum" the board like this. In real close games I would want to know that winning some small group would either do the job, or not do the job and I should concentrate elsewhere. But I am told that good players don't think like that, they just grab at everything. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:06 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players count by > taking all the stones off the board and putting them in piles of ten. > > I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it is > really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least twice to > verify, and usually 3 or 4 times to get two counts that are the same. So no > one does it this way. > > Clearly Chinese counting is easier for computers, but Japanese counting > seems easier to most people. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > > > David Fotland wrote: > > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > > preserved > > > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > > - removal of dead stones > > - filling in of (most) prisoners > > - rearrangements of stones > > - rearrangements of borders > > - border stone colour changes > > > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy > > the position: > > - point by point counting > > - point by point half counting > > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > > > -- > > robert jasiek > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
