Like everyone else (it seems), I have been playing around with pip counting methods. I came up with a 2-step method that I haven't seen in print. For what it's worth:

(Step 1) Mentally, calculate the number of pips it would take to move each and every checker onto the 1st point in the next quadrant. For example, it would take 5 pips to move the white checker on the 23 point to the 18 point, 4 pips to move the 2 checkers on the 20 point to the 18 point, 2 pips to move the 2 on the 13 point to the 12 point, etc. For those in the home court, add the pips required to bear them off.

In the position above, using this method, the total for white would be 46 pips.

(Step 2) Count the total crossovers. Since you have moved (mentally) everything to the next quadrant, count those in the opponents home court as 3 crossovers, those in the opponents outer court as 2 crossovers, and those in your outer court as 1 crossover. Those in your home court aren't counted because you have already moved them (mentally) off the board. Multiply the crossovers times 6 and add this to white's pip count counted in step 1.

In the position above, there are 17 crossovers for white, for a pip count of 17 x 6 = 102. Add that to the 46 pips in step 1, for a total of 148 pips for white.

Repeat for red. In step one, I get 42 pips. In step 2, I get 19 crossovers for 19 x 6 = 114 pips. Total for red of 114 + 42 = 156 pips

Actually, this method takes about as long as a full count but was given mainly as a prelude to the next method, in order to show the principle.



Same position. This is a pip difference method. It only gives the difference in the player's pip counts. It goes very fast and the numbers dealt with are quite small.

(Step 1) Do exactly as in the 1st method except count only those checkers that don't have a checker of different color opposite them on the board. In other words, count only the excess checkers. In the position given above, only those without an X are counted.

For white, the count is 12. For red, it is 8. The difference is 4. I first do step 1 for both and then memorize the difference. I would remember this as W4.

(Step 2) Count the crossovers the same way as in the full-count method, here again counting only those excess checkers.

For white, there are 4 crossovers and for red there are 6. Red has 2 more than white, for a 2 x 6 = 12 pip difference.

Therefore, Red has a 12 - 4 = 8 higher pip count than white.

Does nobody do a pip count by simply adding the numbers together depending on where the pips are? I found that once I started doing this, fairly quickly groups appear that are common, and their pip count becomes known, which further reduces the time taken. It doesn't take all that long to get fairly proficient at doing it this way.

This is pretty much what I do. I sometimes do some mental shuffling of checkers to make the numbers work out better. For example, if there's a checker on the 22 point and the 24 point, I move one forward and one backwards to do 2*23 instead. But otherwise, I find these pip counting techniques to be more effort than just doing the math directly.

As most readers here are lifetime players I think that pattern recogition, i.e. the learning of reference positions for race and bearoff, would be most practical and doesn't give unnecessary pressure.

The trouble with most pip count methods is players have to recognise they need a pip count rather than just knowing it. That is why online, players tend to play better as they can always see the pip count even when they may not think they need it, it is there.

So where is this going? I find keep a running pip count of the difference gives me a distinct advantage. I still teach players how to do a pip count but in actual match play I never do one. In a chouette, I would do a pip count when needed - As I want the play to be as fast as is possible. I figure if we play fast my opponent's should make more mistakes than me, so I play fast to get them to play fast.

I turn off pip count everytime I play online, for practice purposes (the site and software I use allow me to do that and I do not play money here). After all, pip count doesn't magically shows itself in actual play.
I enjoy Zare method (http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/Ha...rPipCount.html) IMHO you cant get decent estimates without much effort with it (and derive the actual count if needed).