I’ve seen in various books that strong Go players estimates the score during the game by counting intersections in group of 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. as well as counting a third of an outlined moyo. Would it not be possible to get a rough estimation of who is ahead simply by counting the number of squares on the board staked out by each side if one wants a quick way to estimate who is winning?
By “squares” do you mean points, or literally the squares between points?
1 Like
I mean literally the squares between them. Just to get a rough and quick estimation of the relative size of the territories to determine who is in the lead.
I imagine that squares of squares would increase from having 1 square, to 1+3, to 1+3+5, to 1+3+5+7, &c., and that squares of points would increase from having 1 point, to 1+3, to 1+3+5, to 1+3+5+7, &c., likewise, so that together they’d increase at the same rate, just with the points always being one iteration ahead of the squares. So my intuition would be that it would probably be fine, depending on how much introduced error you’re okay with.
Personally what I do is count by 6s, and keep track of the score in decimal-encoded base six (in other words, I count the number of “half-dozens”, and the number of ones). I like that 6=2*3 and thus makes a nice little rectangle which I can mentally tile over larger areas quite faciley. Counting by 4s has the advantage that it is undeniably in the subitizing range, but I’ve never tried it out as counting by 6s has worked well for me.
1 Like
Another (partially satirical, but not entirely) thread you might find relevant:
4 Likes
Do you mean this?
3 Likes