Life In 19x19

When I tried out Fisher-timing, I experienced the same problem: with time settings that are correctly adjusted for opening and middle game, too much time will accumulate during endgame.

My conclusion was that however superior Fisher might seem in theory, Japanese byo-yomi is simple and gets the job done best.

I'm also a fan of byo-yomi. Not because I think it's theoretically better, but because it's simple: X seconds a move. Period.

I prefer to spend my time thinking about the game than thinking about the time period. From this perspective, systems like Fisher and Canadian are too distracting for my taste.

HermanHiddema wrote:

ez4u wrote:Why do you think it is a problem that you use less than the full time that you are given? Keep in mind that is the 'problem' you are trying to fix.

I think this isn't really the problem he is trying to fix. Rather, as with most timing systems, you are trying to make sure that people have as much time available for their games as possible while also allowing tournament schedules to stay within certain bounds (and while protecting them from timeouts).

To keep your schedule, you sort of have to plan your tournament around the worst case of your timing system. If the way people use their time *on average* is far away from the worst case, your solution is not optimal.

So Matti is noticing a gap between the way people *normally* use their time (i.e. using very little of it in the late endgame) and the worst case (using all your time even in the late endgame) and is trying to make more of that time available to more players.

Check Matti's OP again. There are no average people there only 'I'. As we all do, Matti has noticed something about the way he plays and extrapolated it to everyone else.

...as with most timing systems, you are trying to make sure that people have as much time available for their games as possible while also allowing tournament schedules to stay within certain bounds (and while protecting them from timeouts).

This I have to disagree with. Obviously absolute timing is the only timing system that sets out to make sure that people have as much time available for their games. In three weeks I will take part in the second Tokyo qualifier for the Takurashuzohai, Japan's largest amateur tournament. Some 1400 people will sit down in the main auditorium in Tokyo's Kokusai Forum building and contest 5 rounds between 9:30 and 18:00. We use 40 minutes absolute timing.

All other timing systems set out to do something else. Most of them set out to mitigate the problem of time crunches at the end of the game (your timeouts). Fischer, Bronstein, byo-yomi, and Canadian are all examples of this. They all take away part of the time available earlier in the game and deliberately deliver it later to prevent players from from using it too soon. Realize that this deliberately sacrifices the goal of giving people as much time as possible for their game. It then becomes a matter of how much to penalize people in the early going and how much (and how) to deliver them time in the late going.

As to whether people don't need time in the end game, I bow to your knowledge of how you yourself play. Certainly I do need it. I would refer everyone to all the videos of pro TV games now to be found on YouTube for overwhelming proof that pros need it. Perhaps one of the themes that should be included in all of our 'think like a pro' threads should be - 'use your time like a pro'. Matti would no longer see his time accumulating if he did so.

ez4u wrote: Check Matti's OP again. There are no average people there only 'I'. As we all do, Matti has noticed something about the way he plays and extrapolated it to everyone else.

...as with most timing systems, you are trying to make sure that people have as much time available for their games as possible while also allowing tournament schedules to stay within certain bounds (and while protecting them from timeouts).

This I have to disagree with. Obviously absolute timing is the only timing system that sets out to make sure that people have as much time available for their games. In three weeks I will take part in the second Tokyo qualifier for the Takurashuzohai, Japan's largest amateur tournament. Some 1400 people will sit down in the main auditorium in Tokyo's Kokusai Forum building and contest 5 rounds between 9:30 and 18:00. We use 40 minutes absolute timing.

All other timing systems set out to do something else. Most of them set out to mitigate the problem of time crunches at the end of the game (your timeouts). Fischer, Bronstein, byo-yomi, and Canadian are all examples of this. They all take away part of the time available earlier in the game and deliberately deliver it later to prevent players from from using it too soon. Realize that this deliberately sacrifices the goal of giving people as much time as possible for their game. It then becomes a matter of how much to penalize people in the early going and how much (and how) to deliver them time in the late going.

I don't think we disagree actually. I specifically added the "to protect them from timeouts" clause because absolute time delivers the most time.

So I'm saying timing systems try to achieve a balance between three things. 1. Maximize player time, 2. Keep tournament schedules 3. Prevent game results by timeout. Note that point 3 is not just about protecting players against themselves, but also about protecting them from unscrupulous players who would play on after the endgame just to run an opponent out of time.

The Maidenhead tournament uses accelerated Canadian overtime: the main time is 1 hour, with then 10 stones in 5, then 20 in 5, then 30 in 5, then 40 in 5 etc. so works with simple analogue chess clocks. I had to clarify with the TD if the etc meant 40 for ever or 50 then 60 then 70 and so on and it was the latter. (I probably should have played more than 60 moves in the main time!) Those time settings allow a European class A rating and the schedule allows maybe 2h30m between rounds which is not the theoretical maximum but usually enough. I like having overtime as a prompt to play faster, though perhaps if we played with 75 minutes sudden death and I managed to self-discipline myself to treat it as 60 minutes main time then the effect would be similar. But I just dislike sudden death for the fact people have an incentive to play on hopelessly lost games to win.

ez4u wrote:As to whether people don't need time in the end game, I bow to your knowledge of how you yourself play. Certainly I do need it. I would refer everyone to all the videos of pro TV games now to be found on YouTube for overwhelming proof that pros need it. Perhaps one of the themes that should be included in all of our 'think like a pro' threads should be - 'use your time like a pro'. Matti would no longer see his time accumulating if he did so.

I didn't think there were professional tournaments using Fisher. So I'm not sure how it really works to do the comparison.

In addition, my sense from watching long Japanese matches is that the opening and midgame involve the professionals using more time than the endgame.

Go watch the videos and see whether the pros are using their 30-second byo-yomi periods up to the end of the game and are pressed for time as they are trying to choose their next play. Short answer, they are. If they were using Fischer instead of byo-yomi, would they be accumulating time? Well we won't really know as long as they don't use that system. I will continue to think the answer is no.

The sense that pros use more time in the opening and middle game is true. But we are describing the problem not the answer! The pros have more time early in the game and they use it - too much of it. Otherwise we would not have the timing systems that we do. Think of all the commentaries that you have read that say something like "but (s)he was already in byo-yomi..." or "(s)he made a mistake in byo-yomi..."

Consider the possibility that the reason we amateurs use less time in the endgame is because we have neglected that boring stuff in our studies and are simply poor at it (this is a good description of my own case - again someone generalizing from personal experience ). Is the 'solution' to our poor endgame skills to systematically decrease the amount of time available at the end of the game?

ez4u wrote: Consider the possibility that the reason we amateurs use less time in the endgame is because we have neglected that boring stuff in our studies and are simply poor at it.

Probably true, but it seems also possible that we use less time in the endgame because there are generally fewer points to be made. In the very late endgame, you're fighting over single-digit point moves, so if you make a mistake, it'll cost you less than missing a 20 point move in the middle game.

ez4u wrote:Go watch the videos and see whether the pros are using their 30-second byo-yomi periods up to the end of the game and are pressed for time as they are trying to choose their next play. Short answer, they are. If they were using Fischer instead of byo-yomi, would they be accumulating time? Well we won't really know as long as they don't use that system. I will continue to think the answer is no.

In my experience, strong players often use up all their time for a byoyomi period even when their current move is entirely obvious (e.g. your opponent has just answered your ko threat and you are about to retake the ko). They use that time not to think about their current move, but to think about potential future lines of play. Effectively, they are redistributing their time themselves. I think that if they were using Fischer, they would just play and let it accumulate. They might then use it later, or they might not, depending on the flow of the endgame.

Uberdude wrote:The Maidenhead tournament uses accelerated Canadian overtime: the main time is 1 hour, with then 10 stones in 5, then 20 in 5, then 30 in 5, then 40 in 5 etc. so works with simple analogue chess clocks. I had to clarify with the TD if the etc meant 40 for ever or 50 then 60 then 70 and so on and it was the latter. (I probably should have played more than 60 moves in the main time!) Those time settings allow a European class A rating and the schedule allows maybe 2h30m between rounds which is not the theoretical maximum but usually enough.

It seems that you have found a loop hole in the tournament classification. When A, B and C-classes were introduced, it was assumed that the overtime method would continue with the same speed until the end of the game. Now the Maidenhead tournament has 60 minutes main time and 15 minutes for the first 60 in the overtime, but later one does not get another another 15 minutes for another 60 moves. Instead one has to play 150 moves in the next 15 minutes.

Matti wrote:It seems that you have found a loop hole in the tournament classification. When A, B and C-classes were introduced, it was assumed that the overtime method would continue with the same speed until the end of the game. Now the Maidenhead tournament has 60 minutes main time and 15 minutes for the first 60 in the overtime, but later one does not get another another 15 minutes for another 60 moves. Instead one has to play 150 moves in the next 15 minutes.

I don't know if I would call it a loophole. Tournament class A also accepts 75 minutes sudden death, and this format provides more time than that.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Matti wrote:It seems that you have found a loop hole in the tournament classification. When A, B and C-classes were introduced, it was assumed that the overtime method would continue with the same speed until the end of the game. Now the Maidenhead tournament has 60 minutes main time and 15 minutes for the first 60 in the overtime, but later one does not get another another 15 minutes for another 60 moves. Instead one has to play 150 moves in the next 15 minutes.

I don't know if I would call it a loophole. Tournament class A also accepts 75 minutes sudden death, and this format provides more time than that.

It does not necessarily provide more time, but I can live with the fact that Maidenhead is in the A class.

Matti, were you involved in introducing that A/B/C classes and feel the accelerating overtime at Maidenhead is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules? I wasn't aware it was considered sneaky at all. As Herman says the comparison with the allowed 75-minute sudden death makes me feel it is legitimate, though you are correct that it doesn't necessarily allow more time, for example if you play only 9 moves in minutes 60-65 then you lose on time with the accelerating Canadian, but in sudden death you don't.

One problem with accelerating Canadian overtime is there is a perverse incentive to play more slowly (or fewer moves, e.g. avoiding kos) so as to postpone entering the faster overtime periods. With the 10 then 20 then 30 etc in 5 minutes I don't think this is such a problem, but with a British Open a few years ago the proposed overtime was 3 periods of 20 stones in 5 minutes (so A class) and then a final 2 minutes of sudden death (do you think this should be class A?). I pointed out that a problem with this system is a player who enters overtime early (say move 100, in a 340 move game) has 120 moves left to play (and that's assuming the opponent isn't mean and plays nonsense moves inside territory to prolong the game), but is only allowed to play 60 of them in the next 15 minutes and then has 60 more to play in the final 2 minutes. I suggested that rather than prescribing exactly 20 stones in 5 minutes (at which point the clock is reset and any excess time is lost) that it would be better to say "at least 20 stones in 5 minutes" as that way a player could play 20 stones in say 3 minutes, and then use the remaining time to play some more stones and thus not have to rush and play so many stones in the final 2 minute sudden death. Quite a few people liked this idea, and indeed I wasn't the first to suggest it: it's known as Milton Keynes overtime here in the UK and had apparently been used before. Others didn't though, one criticism being it is more complicated, another that punishing slow players is a good thing, and another that it's harder to referee/notice if your opponent has lost as the clock falling doesn't mean you lose if you are over the 20 stones (but that's a straw man as you can simply say that it does mean you lose: if you choose to play more than 20 it is your responsibility to ensure you stop and count out the next 20 before the 5 minutes is up). I don't actually remember what happened to the tournament, maybe the final sudden death was increased to 5 minutes.

Uberdude wrote:Matti, were you involved in introducing that A/B/C classes and feel the accelerating overtime at Maidenhead is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules?

I was involved. Ales Cieply provided data and I analysed it and we concluded that longer thinking time reduces variance in players' performance.

I wasn't aware it was considered sneaky at all. As Herman says the comparison with the allowed 75-minute sudden death makes me feel it is legitimate, though you are correct that it doesn't necessarily allow more time, for example if you play only 9 moves in minutes 60-65 then you lose on time with the accelerating Canadian, but in sudden death you don't.

Sudden death was not included in our proposal, but was proposed in the meeting and ad hoc decision was to accept 75 minutes sudden death in the A class.