TMark wrote: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.
Mark, this is egoistical and subjective argument where you present that you like Canadian, because you do not need to count stones by yourself. I do not see what is the relevance of this argument.
However "I don't take the game that seriously", is for me that you are saying that you are not taking go that seriously. It is not personal insult aimed towards you. But some people do take go very seriously and those are those who will be on the top of the rating list and will gather all the prize money.
I take go also very seriously, but for me it is impossible to have fun if I and my opponent does not give everything in given time limits.
Mark, having not enough digital clocks is of course one problem, but it is not a problem in Finnish tournaments for example, because here is enough digital clocks for any local tournament. Last game that I played with analog clock was perhaps on year 2008 (I do not remember) and I do play go every week in tournaments and go club.
In general, Mark, it is not relevant to express your personal likings and dislikings, but to evaluate how fair the system is and how difficult given system is for those humans to handle who do want to squeeze every second that is given for them. It goes without saying absolute timecontrol may be fair for both, but it is almost impossible to play serious go with it, because squeezing every second for reading and calculating is practically impossible.
There are of course severe problems if applied to analog clock, but I clearly stated that problems are approximately same sized than are with Canadian overtime. And later you did support your claim with egoistical argument and started meta discussion.