Byo-yomi: Do you like it?

[cdybeijing]

I think that Liisa's posts are now verging on the realm on trolling.

Sorry, but you fail. The troll here is you, who makes almost no attempt to express something meaningful while quipping cynical one liners.

To Kirby, I agree that calling your personal preference irrelevant is rude, especially in a thread with a title such as this one. However, I also think it's important to recognize that threads are dynamic and the topic can easily shift to something that perhaps you did not originally intend. Why fight it? A similar thing happened to me a while back, when I made a brief comment about orientalism, and the whole forum erupted into a discussion of political correctness - something that was, in my mind, never at issue.

Go players in general seem very committed to traditions and to things they perceive to just work. Why change it if it isn't broken, right? Byo-yomi is not a bad time system at all; in fact, I like it and use it all the time on KGS. From a tournament director's perspective, it's reasonable if the periods are short and few enough. But if you're going to keep the periods to 20 seconds or less, Fischer and Bronstein are both simply more effective at evenly distributing the time pressure. I have often heard the ridiculous "argument" in the past that Canadian time is great because it is dynamic; well, it doesn't get any more dynamic than Fischer time!

Of course byo-yomi periods of 1 minute or more are wonderful for slow players like myself, and I love it, but it can never be a reality for amateur tournaments with multiple games in one day.

[DrStraw]

I think that Liisa's posts are now verging on the realm on trolling.

Sorry, but you fail. The troll here is you, who makes almost no attempt to express something meaningful while quipping cynical one liners.

I have made several meaningful posts to this thread and have been totally ignores by Lisa, who want to write her own agenda.

[Jedo]

Ignoring this recent debate, I'll just add that Byo-yomi time is ok, but I greatly prefer Fischer time, mostly for the reasons already stated relating to time management.

Additionally, I think that more of an effort should be make to use Fischer time at tournaments. Most people either seem to be in favor or neutral to Fischer time so I think a wider use (such as on KGS!) could make people warm up to what I believe to be a better system.

[Kirby]

...
To Kirby, I agree that calling your personal preference irrelevant is rude, especially in a thread with a title such as this one. However, I also think it's important to recognize that threads are dynamic and the topic can easily shift to something that perhaps you did not originally intend. Why fight it? ....

I agree. I don't want to argue about things anymore. I think I was just flustered at some of the PMs that I had been getting (that's why I started this thread). But I am glad to be done with arguing about this.

After all, I can think of DrStraw's advice. While I may "like arguing", it's not what's best for me. So I'm going to try to do something more productive now.

[Liisa]

So I'm going to try to do something more productive now.

Like productive arguments!

[palapiku]

Sorry, but you fail. The troll here is you [...]

Ah, the quintessence of Internet arguing.

[karaklis]

Of course time management is part of the game nowadays. However originally it was not, and matches lasted days, weeks or even months. The necessity to finish a match in acceptable time limits (whatever these are) makes the time factor be part of the match. To keep the original spirit of the game, the time factor should be minimized though (just my opinion of course). Each time system has its merits and flaws.

Sudden Death: That's the worst case. As you don't know in the beginning how many stones you will play during the game, it is difficult to make efficient use of time. It is probable that you either have a lot of time left, or you are fighting to make your last moves as quickly as possible in order not to run out of time.

Ing time: Not much better than Sudden Death. It allows extra time, but the connection between overtime and penalty is even more difficult to handle than just thinking about time, since you have to take care of two things at the same time. The merit is, that you never run out of time.

Canadian overtime (usually 15/5 or 20/5 or progressive, increasing the number of stones by 5 for each period): The merit is that you can have some opportunity to manage within each period: So if you neead to ponder 3 minutes on a single move, it is possible (though you have to set the other stones within two minutes then). The flaw is the same as in sudden death, though on a smaller scale: it is difficult to make efficient use of time since it is possible that you still have some minutes left or you are fighting to hammer the last stones on the board within the time limit.

Japanese byoyomi: Its merit is that you have a guaranteed time to move for each stone. The disadvantages are that once you have set your stone, the remaining time is lost; and you cannot ponder long enough about a difficult move, if you need to. The latter of course depends on the number of byoyomi periods. If the number is only around 3-5, I would say that japanese byoyomi is inferior to Canadian overtime. If it is 20-30, then it would be superior.

Fischer timing: It combines the merit of all the time systems above, and even more: Since you can accumulate as much time as you know you need in difficult situations and since you are not limited by a certain arbitrary time (such as the 5-minutes-period in Canadian overtime), it is much more flexible and elegant. One minor flaw is that in the beginning it looks as if you had less time than with the other systems (but this is really only a very small issue).

Conclusion: Fischer timing is the best time management of the mentioned, followed by Japanese byoyomi and Canadian overtime. For these two it depends on the exact settings to decide which one is superior. Ing time and Sudden Death are the worst time managements.

[tj86430]

If you ask me, whether I like e.g. Volvo, it's not the same thing as asking whether I like Volvo better or worse than Mercedes-Benz.

If a person expressed liking for Volvos, and, upon further questioning, was found to have never driven any other car, would we consider their opinion to be of any value?

Short answer: yes (longer answer available upon request).

[Harleqin]

I think that there was one major (championship?) US tournament that used ca. 30 mins + 30 sec fischer increment. This is only what I know for 30 sec increment what i personally would prefer most. I just watched it from kgs, but do not know how well it was received. In finland we have had one major tournament using Fischer times (Oulun Kesä 2010 used 25 10) and a bunch of lightning tournaments. E.g. EGC 2010 lighting tournament used Fischer times (5 2 if recall correctly, i did not make it to the finals). I will try to speak out that qualifications for the Turku city championship would use 25 10 Fischer time control. And of course Fischer is one standard in Chess tournaments and servers, so it should fit even better to go because variance in amount of moves is much smaller in go than chess. Usually games will last some 240 to 300 moves.

Technical note:

In my experience, for Fischer time XX min/YY sec, YY should be about half of XX, with a "window" of about 1/3 to 2/3. If YY is bigger, the time management gets inflexible; if it is smaller, the possible accidental time pressure is too big.

You can quickly determine how long a game of 300 moves will last (this is a good upper bound for game lengths; more moves will not significantly change the overall time, and 300 is easy to calculate): overall time T300 is (2*XX + 5*YY) min.

30/30 has T300 = 210 min = 3:30 h.
I think that the ratio of basic to bonus time is not well chosen here; I would rather use 55/20 for this game length.

25/10 has T300 = 100 min = 1:40 h.
This is a rather fast-paced setting. One can comfortably use this for a tournament schedule with round starts 2 hours apart.

5/2 has T300 = 20 min.
This is a typical Blitz setting. The overall time resembles the old "10 min sudden death".

[topazg]

Wow, this is a fascinating thread

Firstly, some points from other posts:

However, much time in Canadian is wasted counting out stones and determining how many moves remain to be made. Additionally, unused time is lost when the overtime period resets, meaning that players are not getting an equal balance of thinking time during the game. (i.e. For the two players, the sum of actual thinking time used by player 1 + time remaining on the clock of player 1 will not be equal to the same calculation for player 2.)

This is a logical fallacy. In a game where the end of main time is not reached, the sum of actual thinking time per player will not be the same. In a game where one person has had more byo-yomi periods than the other, the sum of actual thinking time per player will not be the same. In fact, if my opponent pops out for a toilet break on my time or their time, the sum of actual thinking time won't even be reflected in the clocks. Of course, the other key point in this debate is the fact everyone is thinking on the other person's time anyway. People have a time control, they can use it as they like. If there are 5 minutes to make 25 moves, they can use all those 5 minutes or not. I fail to see any argument for "balanced thinking time" that canadian overtime is worse for regarding balanced thinking time.

If you ask me, whether I like e.g. Volvo, it's not the same thing as asking whether I like Volvo better or worse than Mercedes-Benz.

If a person expressed liking for Volvos, and, upon further questioning, was found to have never driven any other car, would we consider their opinion to be of any value?

This is a complete straw man. Yes, their view is 100% valuable on whether or not they like the car. Whether the car is better is not the question posed, and not one they have given a view on. So judging the value of their opinion on an unasked question is rather irrelevant.

With Canadian overtime on Analog clocks it is relatively easy to cheat - you might consider that to be a bad thing. Most people do not consider the possibility that Go players will cheat, so they do not consider this point.

How do you cheat? Only way I can think of offhand is to count out, say, 23 stones instead of 25, and hope your opponent doesn't notice. But that seems quite difficult, I would be able to tell almost at a glance if the count was fishy.

38/40 would be less obvious, and although most people arrange their stones in tens, they don't always do so and I doubt I'd notice if there were two or three missing from the pile.

If the game were tense enough for that to matter, I'd probably also not notice them pocketing stones from the pile.

There is also the fact that the other player is setting the timer - this is also quite possible to cheat on.

Technical note:

In my experience, for Fischer time XX min/YY sec, YY should be about half of XX, with a "window" of about 1/3 to 2/3. If YY is bigger, the time management gets inflexible; if it is smaller, the possible accidental time pressure is too big.

You can quickly determine how long a game of 300 moves will last (this is a good upper bound for game lengths; more moves will not significantly change the overall time, and 300 is easy to calculate): overall time T300 is (2*XX + 5*YY) min.

30/30 has T300 = 210 min = 3:30 h.
I think that the ratio of basic to bonus time is not well chosen here; I would rather use 55/20 for this game length.

25/10 has T300 = 100 min = 1:40 h.
This is a rather fast-paced setting. One can comfortably use this for a tournament schedule with round starts 2 hours apart.

5/2 has T300 = 20 min.
This is a typical Blitz setting. The overall time resembles the old "10 min sudden death".

I like these rules of thumb, always useful to have. I also agree that the idea of working them on upper bound lengths is sensible.


For my part, I don't like or dislike any of the systems particularly. I understand them, and that's enough, I will play them accordingly. I have been in a tournament with 50 minutes main time and 40 stones in 3 minutes overtime. It was so obviously crazy fast that I treated the game as sudden death so I didn't have to worry about it. If people thought they could handle that speed, they could go into it if they wanted to. I fail to see how it was intrinsically bad.

As with most things, if there is a goal, systems can be objectively weighed up against the targets of the goal. For example, if we choose that we don't want time pressure, then either byo-yomi or fischer time with one minute or more extra per move works very well - better most likely than Canadian overtime because it is very easy to be aware that the increment time is for every one move, so no moves/minute calculation is required.

If we choose that we have a strict schedule that absolutely cannot move under any circumstances, we can use sudden death. If people are unhappy with sudden death and a secondary goal is happy tournament participants, an easily understandable timing system that allows for this may be better - Fischer 25/10 or 40/5 depending on the urgency of not letting overtime control the game time.

If there are objectives, you can pick systems that fit the best, and you have criteria on which you can objectively compare different options.. If there aren't, there is no such thing as a better system, just a bunch of equally valid opinions. "I like Japanese byo-yomi because it's easy to understand and I don't like sudden death" is just as good as anyone else's argument regardless of theoretical support on pros and cons.

[Chew Terr]

This post will not add to the discussion of relative merits of one system versus another, though it does explain my thoughts on the issue.

I see there being three groups: tournament directors, high-level competitors (anyone who has a serious chance to win a significant prize/has money on the line) and the more casual player. I speak from the third group, which I believe is the overwhelming majority. From my perspective, I love byo-yomi. I like it, not because of any superiority, but because I understand it and am used to it. I see a real and serious benefit in a system that everyone involved is used to. Even if another system is technically superior, if players have to spend any time at all remembering how the system works, the system is less good than what everyone knows how to use. Of course, I could become used to any system in little enough time, but tournaments are stressful enough without worrying about time settings. I think that the differences between time systems only matter in higher-level play than I can manage, where a few added seconds here or there makes a difference. The status quo for the AGA is byo-yomi with AGA rules, both of which are simple enough to explain to a new player in a minute or two. Other regions are used to Canadian, which is also easy enough to explain, especially if the player is 'raised' on it instead of a different one. I support the status quo for the simple reason that it's good enough for any level of play I expect myself to ever see.

I mentioned three groups:
TD: Likes the status quo because it's easiest to manage with clocks existing, as well as the players understanding it.
Top Player: Wants the ideal system. More power to them.
Us: Wants to play some go

So yeah, I like byo-yomi in any setting that has clocks that can support it. It's good enough, and there's something to be said for that.

[daniel_the_smith]

I prefer the Japanese system to the Canadian one.

I never know how fast to play with Canadian time; it's the only system that I have multiple accidental time losses in. If I used it more maybe I'd get used to it, but as it is I really dislike it.

Fischer time sounds best to me, too, I wish it was more common.

[xed_over]

Ing time: Not much better than Sudden Death. It allows extra time, but the connection between overtime and penalty is even more difficult to handle than just thinking about time, since you have to take care of two things at the same time. The merit is, that you never run out of time.

No. Ing time is sudden death, and you do run out of time.

Ing time is a fixed time period. Period.

The total time is divided in half. The first half is "main" time. The remaining half is divided into 3 equal penalty periods for "overtime". That's all the time you get. Unlike Byo-yomi or Canadian, which could go on forever.

It was designed to have a predictable schedule for finishing games in a tournament setting.

But even when using Ing rules, very few tournaments, that I know of, actually use this time system, since the rule allows TDs to choose between it or the more traditional byo-yomi system.

[mgsuttar]

I've designed a time setting that's better than all the above ones (disclaimer: this is my opinion, not an universal truth). It works as following:

- The players get, each, an absolute time to play the game. For example, one hours.
- If one player runs out of time, he's lost the game.
- If the game ends before that happens, when scoring, take the difference of the remaining time from both players and convert it in points for the player who has more time left at a ratio of 1 minute (rounded down) -> 1 point.

Why do I think it is better?:

- works with any kind of clock.
- it's simple.
- the game has a maximum duration, wich is great for tournaments. Byo-yomi can theoretically drag on almost forever.
- You don't worry with time management, you just want to play fast, since every minute is worth a point.
- That also makes the game much more exciting. Games tend to turn wild, because, if you make the position complicated, you opponent will likely lose some points thinking. Overplays can be advantageous to you even if your opponent responds correctly. But be wary, since poor moves will cause your loss. A close endgame can be a real blast to play and you will see moves that you wouldn't usually see were you playing with other time settings.

Disadvantages:

- Every game turns into blitz. For me blitz is the perfect way to play, because thinkings too much bores me, though I know a lot of people wont like it.
- For the same reason, it will not be suited to tournaments that want slow play.
- If you want time settings that show a go game where players are just trying to play the best moves possible, it won't work either.

[hyperpape]

@mgsuttar: with that time setting, you're not even playing Go.