EGF and Fischer

[Harleqin]

In next Kido Cup they have Canadian byoyomi where first period is 20 stones in 5 minutes, next 30 stones, and then 40 stones. This is one way of increasing the speed. But we cannot predict when exactly players enter yose or start filling dame, so increaseing the speed gradually would be another method.

I have decided against attending the Kido Cup this year because of this, even though I live in Hamburg and enjoyed last year's tournament very much.

This so-called "progressive byoyomi" is one of the worst ideas ever. In fact, it is just a hidden sudden death. At some speed, driving the opponent over the time becomes possible; this system thus fails to prevent this clock abuse. The only difference to sudden death is that you get some time warnings towards the end.

The problem that is attempted to address with this "idea" is that round schedules were quite insecure with main time plus canadian byoyomi. Many people, even including experienced tournament organizers, do not realize that main time plus byoyomi is completely different from absolute time. "One hour plus byoyomi" is not at all similar to "one hour sudden death". In the latter case, all moves must be made within one hour, but in the former, you do not even need to play a single move during that time! So, the scheduling problems from the "main time plus byoyomi" do not come from the byoyomi, but from the main time.

Some tournaments have recognized this, and simply reduced their main time. Many others have not, and fool around with always faster byoyomi. They try to get back to the sudden death, and they got it in hidden form.

[Liisa]

1: First we can adjust this by changing the ratio of increment and time given at the start. E.g. 80 min T270 adjusted Fischer time is equivalent with 12 30f, 35 20f, 58 10f and 71 4f.

Do you find all these equally desirable as a player?

No. The bigger the Fischer bonus the better. That is my opinion. However there are some arguments that can be issued that 35 20f is best compromise of these.

One usual misconception with Fischer is that people think too much how long is the theoretical game length. Much more relevant issue is to consider what is the pace of the play that prevents time from decreasing.

With Fischer these values are as compared to Canadian overtime: 20 sec fischer = 15/5min Canadian, 15f = 20/5min, 12f = 25/5min and 10f = 30/5min. From these it is easy to see that 10 second Fischer is too fast pace for most purposes, because time pressure is too severe if player gets short on time too early phase of the game.

[Harleqin]

With Fischer these values are as compared to Canadian overtime: 20 sec fischer = 15/5min Canadian, 15f = 20/5min, 12f = 25/5min and 10f = 30/5min. From these it is easy to see that 10 second Fischer is too fast pace for most purposes, because time pressure is too severe if player gets short on time too early phase of the game.

I think that basic and bonus time should be balanced. 10 sec bonus time is quite OK when the basic time is also just 20 min. Bonus time also feels more comfortable than the corresponding canadian overtime, so 15st/5min canadian overtime feels actually more close to 18 sec bonus time, for example.

The bigger the Fischer bonus the better. That is my opinion. However there are some arguments that can be issued that 35 20f is best compromise of these.

Since you acknowledge the need for a compromise, I would like to point out that the factors that influence it are:

• forced pace to prevent time trouble,
  
• flexibility in time management for the player,
  
• and schedule security for the organizer.

My experience is that players do not like it when they do not have enough flexibility. This has happened in 20/30 settings, but also in 30/20. The time schedule is also more secure the smaller the time bonus is: 60 extra moves take 10 min with 10 sec time bonus, 15 min with 15 sec time bonus, and 20 min with 20 sec time bonus.

One usual misconception with Fischer is that people think too much how long is the theoretical game length. Much more relevant issue is to consider what is the pace of the play that prevents time from decreasing.

The overall game length is the first consideration, and the basic reason to play with a clock at all. Dividing it into basic and bonus time is an important measure to remove the sudden death problems. The forced pace resulting from this should have a relation to the overall game length.

I think that setting time controls to keep a schedule has become exceedingly simple since the advent of Bonus time: divide the overall time in minutes by 9 to get the time bonus in seconds, then multiply this by 2 to get the basic time in minutes. More elaborate steps:

• Set how long a round should take.
  Example: the rounds shall start 3 hours apart. I'll set 20 min apart for administration, so there are 2:40 h left for the games.
  
• Convert this time to minutes. This is the time you want a 300-move game to take at maximum.
  Example: 2:40 h = 160 min.
  
• Divide by 9. This value in seconds is an estimate of the time bonus.
  Example: 160 / 9 ~= 17.8
  
• Multiply this time bonus estimate by 2. This is an estimate of the basic time in minutes.
  Example: 17.8 * 2 = 35.6.
  
• Set the basic time and time bonus close to this estimate.
  Example: 36/18.
  
• Check the overall game length for 300 moves.
  Example: 36 * 2 + 18 * 5 = 162 min.
  
• Adjust to your liking. For each 2 seconds you change the time bonus, you have to change the basic time by 5 minutes to keep the same overall time.
  Example: one might like multiples of 5 better. This would lead to 30/20 (160 min), 40/15 (155 min), or 45/15 (165 min).

Note that you can divide by 9 quite quickly in your head: 160 / 9 ~= 16 + 1.6 + 0.16 ..., you really only need two elements from this. I do not think that forcing the values into multiples of 5 is useful, by the way.

[Harleqin]

I had claimed a few days ago that there is no time accumulated under Bonus time. Here is an explanation:

At any point during the game, a player has a certain time on the clock. I call this the time reserve. A player's overall remaining time is this time reserve plus the bonus time of his remaining moves.

Example: A player has a time reserve of 8:00 min, the bonus time for this game is set at 15 sec per move, and there are 40 moves remaining (half of which he has to play, half his opponent). This player's overall remaining time is then 8:00 min plus 20 times 0:15 min = 13:00 min.

At each move, the time the player has used is subtracted from his time reserve, then the bonus time for this move is added. His overall remaining time is then the new time reserve plus the bonus time of his remaining moves, which are one less.

Example: Above player uses 10 sec for his move. His time reserve is now 8:05 min. His overall remaining time is 8:05 min plus 19 times 0:15 min = 12:50 min.

The overall remaining time is always reduced by the time actually used. There is no accumulation and no spill.

[Liisa]

I do not think that forcing the values into multiples of 5 is useful, by the way.

Depends on the clock used. Excalibur2 has presets only for nearest 5 minutes. So it is pretty much necessary to use multiples of 5 as a basic time in the beginning. For time bonus this does not matter and bonus can be freely chosen.

---

But I would like to add some notion for those who like to estimate probabilities for actual game length accurately. With longest games there is typically increased the move count greatly, because there are lots of exchanges of last ½ point kou and many dames are played before counting. In most cases people do not use much time for these trivial but numerous small endgame moves. That means that often case in the end of long game there may be accumulated unused time more than 5-10 minutes for both players.

I think that this, that typically there is more time allocated for players for small end game than they need, is the reason why actual Fischer games tend to be slightly shorter than what can be calculated with using T300 value. Game might last 300 moves and even more, but there is spilled time left that has accumulated in the end. This is the reason why it is safe to estimate schedule 10-30 minutes too tight, what should be the theoretical value for the maximum time span of game. In large tournaments however, where law of large numbers will apply, this effect might be slightly diminished.

[Harleqin]

But I would like to add some notion for those who like to estimate probabilities for actual game length accurately. With longest games there is typically increased the move count greatly, because there are lots of exchanges of last ½ point kou and many dames are played before counting. In most cases people do not use much time for these trivial but numerous small endgame moves. That means that often case in the end of long game there may be accumulated unused time more than 5-10 minutes for both players.

I think that this, that typically there is more time allocated for players for small end game than they need, is the reason why actual Fischer games tend to be slightly shorter than what can be calculated with using T300 value. Game might last 300 moves and even more, but there is spilled time left that has accumulated in the end. This is the reason why it is safe to estimate schedule 10-30 minutes too tight, what should be the theoretical value for the maximum time span of game. In large tournaments however, where law of large numbers will apply, this effect might be slightly diminished.

Yes, people usually have at least 5 min left at the end of the game. I propose to use T300 because it is a reasonable upper bound of the game length; I actually feel confident to guarantee that a schedule will work based on it. The schedule is always dependent on the longest game of the round, and in big tournaments, there can be 150 games per round. The probability that one of the games actually goes to significantly more than 300 moves and the players use almost all the time is not negligible then. Having a conservative estimate then helps to keep the schedule.

I think that these estimates will be revised with further experience, so that less buffer can be chosen (it needs not, since a little pause between rounds is not necessarily bad). It might even be possible to schedule rounds three hours apart with 40/20 (T300 = 3 h). Since T300 can be so easily calculated in one's head, I think that it is a good guide value in any case.

[Liisa]

I have decided against attending the Kido Cup this year because of this, even though I live in Hamburg and enjoyed last year's tournament very much.
This so-called "progressive byoyomi" is one of the worst ideas ever. In fact, it is just a hidden sudden death.

I just noticed that main tournament in Kido cup is not qualified to class A, because adjusted time is less than 72 minutes. So, as a class B tournament these time settings are ok. There should not be reasons for boycott tournament, because people can consider it to be class B tournament with 70 min sudden. This is very fair time setting for class B.

But I agree that this application for progressive Canadian is not the best idea. My understanding thinks that progressive is like first 15/5min, 20/5min, 25/5min, 25/5min, 25/5min... This prevents people from playing half of the game in overtime like it is the case with 5/15min, but transition is smoother than to go directly to 25/5min.

[Liisa]

* Availability of clocks is and will remain a decisive factor.

i just noticed and I find myself a little silly that I did not notice it earlier. That actually modified Fischer timing will suit for analog chess clocks even better than Canadian overtime!

There is just needed to do one compromise, that time is added to both players clocks after every 2×25 moves. The amount of time added should be 5-10 minutes, depending how sluggish time control we want.

And because we know that it is very rare that game will last less than 200 moves. First increment can be added on move 200. That means that in the beginning there is counted 100 stones for each and time is given some 30-60 minutes. Then on move 200 5-10 minutes is added to both players clock and it is counted additional 25 stones for both. And again on move 250 and 300 this is repeated.

That means that because it is very rare that games are longer than 350 moves, In practice there is only 2-3 times needed to add more time. With slow Canadian, if both players do enter on overtime early, there may be up to 12 times needed to add 5 minutes and count 15 stones in turn for both.

This will give same benefits for schedule regulation as regular Fischer. Also players may freely allocate their time and because time additions are accumulating, there is no spilled time and there is always possible to let safe buffer to flag.

Drawback is that there need to be made a compromise how often time is added to both players clock. This by definition makes time control less smooth than regular Fischer and active time management is required. But since keeping buffer is an option, time management should be easier and less stressful than with Canadian overtime.

If 200 stones feels as too many stones for the first period, this amount may be reduced to e.g. 2×75, but this also means that there is more need for adjusting clock.

How silly it can be to not to grasp such a simple idea. Too bad that since even Ing clocks do support Fischer timing, there is not much need for playing with analog clocks. Too bad that I did not grasp this 4 years ago!

[Harleqin]

As far as I know, the Ing clocks only have sudden death and "japanese byoyomi".

[TMark]

I'm going to have to find out if any tournament I go to will expect me to count out 100 stones at the start of each game as part of Fischer timing. Knowing the space in which tournaments are usually played, the thought of every participant counting out 100 stones is going to be a recipe for disaster. There is usually a clock, various cups and containers, recording materials and now a scattering of 100 stones on both sides of the board? Now I know that someone will come along, a second Mr Ing perhaps, with some ingenious device for counting and retaining 100 miscellaneous-sized go stones which every player will be required to own before they can take part in one of these tournaments, but count me out.

Best wishes.

[Liisa]

Mark, with regular Canadian there is far more muddle with stones, because you need to repeat stone counting up to twelve times during one game. For example if you really lack imagination, you may put all stones into small plastic bag and count 100 stones into your stone bowl. Then repeat counting 25 stones into your bowl. This is really not big deal and is far more easy than to count up to six times 15-25 stones and scatter them on the table. At least you may place stones that you are using for playing into your stone bowl and not to scatter them on table!

There is also one thing to consider. Since both players do count stones simultaneously miscounting is not relevant, because non of the two players do not get benefit over another by miscounting stones. If both players do arrive on 200th move mark at different time, we may just take the picture of game and continue game and afterwards look from position who did count wrong.

Actually it would be enough that only one of the players does the counting, but since we live in egalitarian world and there is absolutely on trouble in counting stones it is better that both of players does the counting.

In short, there is counting of stones, this is unavoidable, but there is far less that to be done in the middle of the game than with slow Canadian overtime!

It is curious how readily people are to condemn new ideas, even though they have just prejudices towards new and assumptions that old is good, because there has been done things so many years in old way. But that Kido cup's old fashion progressive Canadian overtime had absolutely nothing good and practical.

[TMark]

I am of a different opinion and that is all that this is, a difference of opinion. I do slightly resent the impression that I get from this discussion that one person's opinion about Fischer time is that it is inherently the most logical and simple system and all other systems should be swept away. I have played under sudden-death, byoyomi read by humans, byoyomi read by clocks, Canadian overtime and progressive Canadian overtime in my life in Go and, both as an organiser and a player, I prefer sudden death. Canadian overtime comes second, because then only one person, my opponent, has to count out any stones; I never get into any form of overtime because I don't take the game that seriously and I usually plan to play within the time limits. I do not take seriously the suggestion that both players should be required to count out 100 stones at the start of the game; however this is organised, it will soon turn into chaos.

Best wishes.

[shapenaji]

You know, I had a thought,

It might be interesting to try Absolute time, but with one caviat.

A pass adds 1 minute to your own clock. It would be a potentially losing timesuji played at any time except for the very end of the game, but it removes the strategy of playing nonsense to run out a clock.

Game lengths would be very predictable too...

EDIT: In fact, I think I'm going to give this idea it's own thread...

[Liisa]

I am of a different opinion and that is all that this is, a difference of opinion. I do slightly resent the impression that I get from this discussion that one person's opinion about Fischer time is that it is inherently the most logical and simple system and all other systems should be swept away.

This is because there has not been presented any arguments in this thread that does support any other timing system. You may freely state them, but since there is none, it is very difficult. You only have stated your egoistical personal tastes and reasons that you dislike fair systems because you do not take go seriously. That means that you are deriving your opinions form your personal tastes and assume that every other are obligated to have same preferences as you.

I do not take seriously the suggestion that both players should be required to count out 100 stones at the start of the game; however this is organised, it will soon turn into chaos.

This is wrong! It is far more easy to count 100 stones into your stone bowl before the game starts than to count 15-25 stones to be scattered on the table during the game several times. You are just making arguments from prejudices and your personal tastes.

[TMark]

I am of a different opinion and that is all that this is, a difference of opinion. I do slightly resent the impression that I get from this discussion that one person's opinion about Fischer time is that it is inherently the most logical and simple system and all other systems should be swept away.

This is because there has not been presented any arguments in this thread that does support any other timing system. You may freely state them, but since there is none, it is very difficult. You only have stated your egoistical personal tastes and reasons that you dislike fair systems because you do not take go seriously. That means that you are deriving your opinions form your personal tastes and assume that every other are obligated to have same preferences as you.

I do not take seriously the suggestion that both players should be required to count out 100 stones at the start of the game; however this is organised, it will soon turn into chaos.

This is wrong! It is far more easy to count 100 stones into your stone bowl before the game starts than to count 15-25 stones to be scattered on the table during the game several times. You are just making arguments from prejudices and your personal tastes.

The title of the thread is self-explanatory and you are presenting a number of arguments in favour of adopting Fischer timing. Each time it is pointed out that there are problems with the concept, e.g. the lack of electronic clocks at every tournament or the organisation of up to 100 players each having to remove 100 stones from one container into another before the game starts, the temperature rises at your end. I have made no personal comments; I have kept all my comments polite and expressed my preferences fairly clearly. Anyone who knows me over the 40+ years that I have been playing knows that I take Go extremely seriously; the fact that I play for a fun game both on the Internet and at tournaments is also well known. I am surprised that a moderator has not already deleted your personal attack on me, but since you seem unable to keep calm, I will do so and remove myself from this thread.

Best wishes.