Score estimator survey options

[richyfourtytwo]

I’m a bit concerned about the options given about the score estimator. There was none I could choose.

I think using a much better score estimator during the game would be cheating. It would tell you which groups are dead, where an invasion might work and so on. I definitely don’t want that.

However, I am entirely happy with having a bad score estimator available always. Actually this feature was one of the main reason I switched to OGS originally. I know I can’t rely on it, but it speeds up rough counting immensely. Doing it without any tool would just be boring work. (I only play correspondence btw.)

So what I want is:

1. a bad score estimator being always available
2. a good score estimator in the counting phase

And 1. is a lot more important for me. If I lost that I’d actually be tempted to see if other servers offer it.

[Kaworu_Nagisa]

I thought it said “analysis disabled also disables score estimator”, but I could be wrong.

I consider analysis mode “cheating”, and a good score estimator would also fall under the same. (I use conditional move and place a stone, then I can read one less stone, but since that’s available to everyone all the time, I don’t consider it “cheating”.)

[flovo]

My opinion about SEs:

At the moment, the Score estimator consist of two parts, a territory estimator and a score estimator.

My opinion about a SE in the strict sense (only the score estimation is given):

I see problems when a good SE is usable on variations in ongoing games. When one uses a SE on variations, one can find the best move, by using the SE for every possible move and then submitting the best one. This would basically be the same as allowing AI assistance.

I don’t see such problems if the SE is only usable for already played positions. Most player wouldn’t count either way (not even in correspondence games), so the SE allows for an increased quality of games (e.g. player can know if they are behind and resigning becoming a valid option). For most players the time needed to learn to count reliable is better spent on other skills.

Counting is time intensive, and needs very good skills to be somewhat reliable. I’d consider it one of the less impotent skills, since it highly depend on most other playing skills.

If territory estimation should be available is another topic:

@richyfourtytwo

It would tell you which groups are dead, where an invasion might work and so on. I definitely don’t want that.

+1

While such a tool is useful for beginners (<20k) it’s one of the first skills one should learn (to see where groups are in danger and which part of the board isn’t already claimed by any player).

---

PS: Analysis disabled disables SE as well.

[richyfourtytwo]

Since both replies so far mentions that you can disable the score estimator via disabling analysis:

Wouldn’t help me at all, because I actually want both, analysis and a score estimator. I just don’t want a reliable score estimator during the game, as that is basically equivalent to using an AI engine (at least to some degree). That’s why I’m happy with a bad one. I assume my position will not be widely shared, but hey, it’s mine!

[yebellz]

I made arguments against AI analysis being available to the players during the game here:

December AI Updates

I would dislike having strong AI provide any estimation about an ongoing game (whether it be score, territory, or even just win probability) to the players of the game. If the score estimator were to be improved with strong AI, I would hope that the players of the game would not be able to access it (during the game), or that the feature would only be present for unranked games. I made the following argument in another thread: On another note, I actually hope that the “ongoing game score e…

I’m not sure how much utility a “bad” score estimator would really provide, if it has to be “bad” enough not to potentially influence the game. Not sure how to definitively say what is bad enough either.

[richyfourtytwo]

@yebellz

I’m not sure how much utility a “bad” score estimator would really provide

Why ‘would’? We have one, no? And for me it’s useful.

[teapoweredrobot]

I feel the should be something like a score estimator that does only that and nothing more. In that it would state the score but not show anything on the board. This would enable people to see if they are far ahead, behind or if it’s close but not obviously reveal which groups were dead or unsettled. Maybe it could give a margin of error.

I don’t like analysis or se to be available during a game but I can see that having a function that confirms a suspicion that you should resign would be helpful!

[Kaworu_Nagisa]

Well, pro games have a lot of “white is at 90%, black should resign” situations, and black still ends up winning.

I’m exceptionally against getting players to rely on AI to tell them when to resign or not. It does not help anyone to do less thinking and analysis in their games.

I am in favour of having post-game analysis that helps show territory and potential, and the “estimated score”.

[BHydden]

@Kaworu_Nagisa

white is at 90%, black should resign

There is a big difference between a score estimate and a win percentage.

[Kaworu_Nagisa]

But the way the user can apply them is the same. Both will give an indication of whether or not you should resign, without having to do any thinking or judgment on your own.

[flovo]

I can ensure you, they don’t think either way. On one case, the game goes another 50 moves to scoring phase, in the other a already decided game is over, …