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:
a bad score estimator being always available
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.
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”.)
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:
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).
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!
I made arguments against AI analysis being available to the players during the game here:
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.
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!