Life In 19x19

Tami wrote:My suggestions:

Blitz: 30 seconds each (1 minute hourglass)
Quickplay: 90 seconds each (3 minute hourglass)
Short: 3 minutes each (6 minute hourglass)
Long: 5 to 10 minutes each (10 to 20 minute hourglass)
Serious: more than 10 minutes each

You have a weird definition of 'Short'. If each player uses 3 minutes for each move to move 200, that is 10 hours.

A 10 minute each game can easily last more than a day. This time system is not really suited for tournaments.

badukJr wrote:You have a weird definition of 'Short'. If each player uses 3 minutes for each move to move 200, that is 10 hours.

A 10 minute each game can easily last more than a day. This time system is not really suited for tournaments.

Why wouldnt it be suited for tournaments? Its not suited to one-day tournaments, because you cant tell when a game is going to end but whats the issue with any other kind?

Kaya.gs wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Notice that there is nothing about losing when your clock drops to zero. You lose when the difference between your clock and your opponent's clock exceeds some value.

Its the same thing.

Let me give you an example.

Hourglass 10 min

Player A Player B
05:00 05:00
04:50 05:10
05:02 04:58
02:00 08:00
00:10 09:50
00:00 10:00 Player B + Time

That's what I said in post #11. So why keep track of the difference in clocks?

Bill Spight wrote:

Kaya.gs wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Notice that there is nothing about losing when your clock drops to zero. You lose when the difference between your clock and your opponent's clock exceeds some value.

Its the same thing.

Let me give you an example.

Hourglass 10 min

Player A Player B
05:00 05:00
04:50 05:10
05:02 04:58
02:00 08:00
00:10 09:50
00:00 10:00 Player B + Time

That's what I said in post #11. So why keep track of the difference in clocks?

Ah , merely to use the same interface as any other clock. We thought of making an actual hourglass animation , but it takes some effort and it has limited value. I guess we will do it some time in the future.

Bill Spight wrote:

Kaya.gs wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Notice that there is nothing about losing when your clock drops to zero. You lose when the difference between your clock and your opponent's clock exceeds some value.

Its the same thing.

Let me give you an example.

Hourglass 10 min

Player A Player B
05:00 05:00
04:50 05:10
05:02 04:58
02:00 08:00
00:10 09:50
00:00 10:00 Player B + Time

That's what I said in post #11. So why keep track of the difference in clocks?

Kaya.gs wrote:Ah , merely to use the same interface as any other clock. We thought of making an actual hourglass animation , but it takes some effort and it has limited value. I guess we will do it some time in the future.

But isn't it simpler just to keep track of 0?

Kaya.gs wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like if each player starts with 6 min., then if my time drops below 3 min., I lose, because that means that my opponent has more than 9 min., and the differential is greater than 6 min. That's equivalent to a system where we do not care about the differential, we just want our time to stay above 0, and each player gets 3 min. Since that is simpler and equivalent, that is how I think that it really works, no?

No, you lose when your clock drops to 0. Your click increases its time only when your opponent is thinking. So if you have 20 seconds, you can only get it to 30 seconds if your opponent thinks 10 seconds more than you.

ez4u wrote:I have played a number of hourglass games IRL, using a chronos game clock. I think the max time we ever used was 90 seconds each. Since you are tracking and restricting the difference in time used between the two players, it is not immediately obvious to me why long-period hourglass would provide a more enjoyable gaming experience than more common timing systems.

The 10-second delay is a good idea since it is quite common for one player to catch the other in a time squeeze without it. Hopefully the delay would be a modifiable option, however, rather than a fixed attribute.

I have absolutely no experience with hourglass. I didnt even play one myself. I got the feeling that 5 minutes hourglass (what i thought was minium) is a bit too much, however, as the game progresses those 5 minutes easily vanish.
On a non-blitz game, spending 3 or 4 minutes in a move is can be very valuable. 90 seconds hourglass would make that impossible.

Of course, usage and experience will give us the better numbers, as we know now that 10 sec byo yomi is blitz and 30 sec is standard, there is no standard yet for fischer or hourglass.

hyperpape wrote:Definitely a cool idea. It might be too complicated to catch on, and people might stick with the defaults, but I still like it. I'm wondering if it might be awkward, since if you choose a short differential, then your opponent can force a very short game by playing fast, while if you choose a differential near your desired game length, you're agreeing to a game 50% longer than the one you want. (If you say 30 minutes, your opponent can play for 60 minutes).

Indeed the most outstanding property of this time system is that is the one that can give the longest possible games (out of the known time systems). As if both players used maximum time, even a 5 minute hourglass could last almost 10 minutes per move.
Of course that is worst case scenario and ridiculous, but it certainly gives room for a really long game.

That was my initial observation in the original post. However for the players its a really good thing because it means that they can play a really long game without the concern of boring your opponent. Its never abusive because you are taking almost as much time as your opponent no matter what.

This thread seems a lot more confused than it ought to be.

First, on the definition. Note the name "hourglass". Apparently it did originate from the use of real hourglasses in the past (in chess, or some other game?). If you stick with that basic imagery, you should have little difficulty understanding how it works. Turn the glass after each play. When the sands of time run out (= your time reduces to zero) you lose. Do not get bound up with differentials, etc. (leave that to the programmers)

Second, regarding the impact on game play. Hourglass is different from all other timing systems that we are used to. Why? It is the only system where the time available to you is determined by how your opponent plays. Think about it. In absolute time, byo yomi, Canadian, Fischer, etc. you always know how much time you will have based on the rules that define the system and the limits agreed to for that game. In some systems, e.g. byo yomi and Canadian, the actual amount of time at your disposal depends on how you play (both have a "use it or lose it" component built in). In Fischer you receive time based only on the number of plays in the game, regardless of how you use it. Absolute of course is WYSIWYG right at the beginning. Hourglass is different. You start with a certain amount of time and then receive an amount of additional time equal to what your opponent uses. The faster your opponent plays, the less time you receive. So with hourglass the clock really becomes a competitive aspect of the interaction between you and your opponent. Short periods bring this additional element into play quickly and that is why people normally play that way AFAIK. It is this new competitive angle that makes hourglass inappropriate for normal tournaments. Why bring in a non-Go competitive element in a serious tournament? By the same token, why not enjoy a separate hourglass competition just for a fun change of pace?

The idea of long games with hourglass seems to assume that you and your opponent will cooperate on the use of the clock in what is otherwise a head to head zero-sum competition. This seems like an odd expectation to me. I think that there is always a prisoners dilemma game waiting to be played out under hourglass timing. If you actually use up nearly all your time, do you really believe that your opponent will kindly return that time to you rather than defect to a time-squeeze strategy?

ez4u wrote:
This thread seems a lot more confused than it ought to be.

First, on the definition. Note the name "hourglass". Apparently it did originate from the use of real hourglasses in the past (in chess, or some other game?). If you stick with that basic imagery, you should have little difficulty understanding how it works. Turn the glass after each play. When the sands of time run out (= your time reduces to zero) you lose. Do not get bound up with differentials, etc. (leave that to the programmers)

Second, regarding the impact on game play. Hourglass is different from all other timing systems that we are used to. Why? It is the only system where the time available to you is determined by how your opponent plays. Think about it. In absolute time, byo yomi, Canadian, Fischer, etc. you always know how much time you will have based on the rules that define the system and the limits agreed to for that game. In some systems, e.g. byo yomi and Canadian, the actual amount of time at your disposal depends on how you play (both have a "use it or lose it" component built in). In Fischer you receive time based only on the number of plays in the game, regardless of how you use it. Absolute of course is WYSIWYG right at the beginning. Hourglass is different. You start with a certain amount of time and then receive an amount of additional time equal to what your opponent uses. The faster your opponent plays, the less time you receive. So with hourglass the clock really becomes a competitive aspect of the interaction between you and your opponent. Short periods bring this additional element into play quickly and that is why people normally play that way AFAIK. It is this new competitive angle that makes hourglass inappropriate for normal tournaments. Why bring in a non-Go competitive element in a serious tournament? By the same token, why not enjoy a separate hourglass competition just for a fun change of pace?

The idea of long games with hourglass seems to assume that you and your opponent will cooperate on the use of the clock in what is otherwise a head to head zero-sum competition. This seems like an odd expectation to me. I think that there is always a prisoners dilemma game waiting to be played out under hourglass timing. If you actually use up nearly all your time, do you really believe that your opponent will kindly return that time to you rather than defect to a time-squeeze strategy?

The mere existence of a time system gives that non-Go competitive edge.
Any time system has the competitive angle in the same way. If you play fast in the opening, you get more time in yose, which gives you an edge. That happens with byo-yomi too, both in amateur and professional tournaments.
I dont see why the property as you stated makes it more or less competitive.

I once participated in a tournament in korea where the rounds were programmed to last for an hour or such, but there were no clocks. Sometimes the matches stretched out, and if a lot of moves were left, a referee (pro player) would count and decide the outcome of the game.

The thing that bothered the players the most was not that abrupt finish, that was mandatory for the circumstances, but having spent a lot less time than their opponents which might have been the cause of their game loss.

On the second statement, of course its obvious that both players wont use their max available time each move, thats just a longest-length scenario, which is dreaded in tournaments that have to go through a schedule, or mainly observers, which usually want fast games.


There is something to mention in this conversation and that is what is the goal of them. Why do we use time systems and what do we want to accomplish.

What is very important to me is that games are not lost on time. That is a failure of the time system. Games should be decided by the board and the players, not the clocks.
Different time systems give different properties for players that have different paces. This system is really excellent for matching people that are willing to spend a really long time on a game, but usually cant get a game with a "30 minute main time, 40 seconds /move " kind of setting.

So its good for slow games surely.
And i bet its also good for fast games, although i think Fischer will be the king of blitz in the future.

What happens with 10 second byoyomi is that one player could get a significant edge by playing at the 8th second, while the other randomly plays from the 3rd second to the 8th. IF you note KEGS , people rarely use the max of their 10 second byoyomi.

With hourglass, that different is taken into consideration (also in Fischer) which could level the amount of time the players use.

Kaya.gs wrote:

ez4u wrote:
This thread seems a lot more confused than it ought to be.

First, on the definition. Note the name "hourglass". Apparently it did originate from the use of real hourglasses in the past (in chess, or some other game?). If you stick with that basic imagery, you should have little difficulty understanding how it works. Turn the glass after each play. When the sands of time run out (= your time reduces to zero) you lose. Do not get bound up with differentials, etc. (leave that to the programmers)

Second, regarding the impact on game play. Hourglass is different from all other timing systems that we are used to. Why? It is the only system where the time available to you is determined by how your opponent plays. Think about it. In absolute time, byo yomi, Canadian, Fischer, etc. you always know how much time you will have based on the rules that define the system and the limits agreed to for that game. In some systems, e.g. byo yomi and Canadian, the actual amount of time at your disposal depends on how you play (both have a "use it or lose it" component built in). In Fischer you receive time based only on the number of plays in the game, regardless of how you use it. Absolute of course is WYSIWYG right at the beginning. Hourglass is different. You start with a certain amount of time and then receive an amount of additional time equal to what your opponent uses. The faster your opponent plays, the less time you receive. So with hourglass the clock really becomes a competitive aspect of the interaction between you and your opponent. Short periods bring this additional element into play quickly and that is why people normally play that way AFAIK. It is this new competitive angle that makes hourglass inappropriate for normal tournaments. Why bring in a non-Go competitive element in a serious tournament? By the same token, why not enjoy a separate hourglass competition just for a fun change of pace?

The idea of long games with hourglass seems to assume that you and your opponent will cooperate on the use of the clock in what is otherwise a head to head zero-sum competition. This seems like an odd expectation to me. I think that there is always a prisoners dilemma game waiting to be played out under hourglass timing. If you actually use up nearly all your time, do you really believe that your opponent will kindly return that time to you rather than defect to a time-squeeze strategy?

The mere existence of a time system gives that non-Go competitive edge.
Any time system has the competitive angle in the same way. If you play fast in the opening, you get more time in yose, which gives you an edge. That happens with byo-yomi too, both in amateur and professional tournaments.
I dont see why the property as you stated makes it more or less competitive.

I once participated in a tournament in korea where the rounds were programmed to last for an hour or such, but there were no clocks. Sometimes the matches stretched out, and if a lot of moves were left, a referee (pro player) would count and decide the outcome of the game.

The thing that bothered the players the most was not that abrupt finish, that was mandatory for the circumstances, but having spent a lot less time than their opponents which might have been the cause of their game loss.

On the second statement, of course its obvious that both players wont use their max available time each move, thats just a longest-length scenario, which is dreaded in tournaments that have to go through a schedule, or mainly observers, which usually want fast games.


There is something to mention in this conversation and that is what is the goal of them. Why do we use time systems and what do we want to accomplish.

What is very important to me is that games are not lost on time. That is a failure of the time system. Games should be decided by the board and the players, not the clocks.
Different time systems give different properties for players that have different paces. This system is really excellent for matching people that are willing to spend a really long time on a game, but usually cant get a game with a "30 minute main time, 40 seconds /move " kind of setting.

So its good for slow games surely.
And i bet its also good for fast games, although i think Fischer will be the king of blitz in the future.

What happens with 10 second byoyomi is that one player could get a significant edge by playing at the 8th second, while the other randomly plays from the 3rd second to the 8th. IF you note KEGS , people rarely use the max of their 10 second byoyomi.

With hourglass, that different is taken into consideration (also in Fischer) which could level the amount of time the players use.

After thinking a while about the point of competitiveness, i think Hourglass has less non-Go competition than the others.

If you consider that superior time management means you think more time than your opponent, then all other time systems fail to measure how much one player "outhought" their opponent.

A 10 sec byoyomi, where one player plays at 4sec, and the other at 8sec, means a 2:1 ratio of time spent.
That is practically impossible to happen on hourglass, that ratio cannot hold up.

By that line of reasoning, players quality of time management has less impact on hourglass than on any other time system, making it the lesser non-Go competitive mode.

What do you think ez4u.

Kaya.gs wrote:

ez4u wrote:
This thread seems a lot more confused than it ought to be.

First, on the definition. Note the name "hourglass". Apparently it did originate from the use of real hourglasses in the past (in chess, or some other game?). If you stick with that basic imagery, you should have little difficulty understanding how it works. Turn the glass after each play. When the sands of time run out (= your time reduces to zero) you lose. Do not get bound up with differentials, etc. (leave that to the programmers)

Second, regarding the impact on game play. Hourglass is different from all other timing systems that we are used to. Why? It is the only system where the time available to you is determined by how your opponent plays. Think about it. In absolute time, byo yomi, Canadian, Fischer, etc. you always know how much time you will have based on the rules that define the system and the limits agreed to for that game. In some systems, e.g. byo yomi and Canadian, the actual amount of time at your disposal depends on how you play (both have a "use it or lose it" component built in). In Fischer you receive time based only on the number of plays in the game, regardless of how you use it. Absolute of course is WYSIWYG right at the beginning. Hourglass is different. You start with a certain amount of time and then receive an amount of additional time equal to what your opponent uses. The faster your opponent plays, the less time you receive. So with hourglass the clock really becomes a competitive aspect of the interaction between you and your opponent. Short periods bring this additional element into play quickly and that is why people normally play that way AFAIK. It is this new competitive angle that makes hourglass inappropriate for normal tournaments. Why bring in a non-Go competitive element in a serious tournament? By the same token, why not enjoy a separate hourglass competition just for a fun change of pace?

The idea of long games with hourglass seems to assume that you and your opponent will cooperate on the use of the clock in what is otherwise a head to head zero-sum competition. This seems like an odd expectation to me. I think that there is always a prisoners dilemma game waiting to be played out under hourglass timing. If you actually use up nearly all your time, do you really believe that your opponent will kindly return that time to you rather than defect to a time-squeeze strategy?

The mere existence of a time system gives that non-Go competitive edge.
Any time system has the competitive angle in the same way. If you play fast in the opening, you get more time in yose, which gives you an edge. That happens with byo-yomi too, both in amateur and professional tournaments.
I dont see why the property as you stated makes it more or less competitive.

The nature of the competition is different. In the example that you mention, you act upon the belief that spending less of your time on the opening in order to reserve it for the yose will give you an edge. Nothing that you do affects how I use my time as your opponent. I may agree with your assessment and also choose to play quickly in the opening. Or I may disagree and spend relatively more of my time on the opening, planning to achieve an early advantage that you will not be able to offset by a more thoughtful yose. You may be able to demonstrate that your choice was more effective in our game, but you do not have the ability to influence my choice. With hourglass you do. Either side has the basic ability to force a rapid pace of play onto both players. If one side decides to play rapidly, the other can not help but respond in kind, the timing system guarantees it.

Kaya.gs wrote:I once participated in a tournament in korea where the rounds were programmed to last for an hour or such, but there were no clocks. Sometimes the matches stretched out, and if a lot of moves were left, a referee (pro player) would count and decide the outcome of the game.

The thing that bothered the players the most was not that abrupt finish, that was mandatory for the circumstances, but having spent a lot less time than their opponents which might have been the cause of their game loss.

On the second statement, of course its obvious that both players wont use their max available time each move, thats just a longest-length scenario, which is dreaded in tournaments that have to go through a schedule, or mainly observers, which usually want fast games.

There is something to mention in this conversation and that is what is the goal of them. Why do we use time systems and what do we want to accomplish.

What is very important to me is that games are not lost on time. That is a failure of the time system. Games should be decided by the board and the players, not the clocks.

See [sl=TimingSystemsRedux]Timing Systems - Redux[/sl] my opus on SL about the broader history and usage of timing systems.

Kaya.gs wrote:Different time systems give different properties for players that have different paces. This system is really excellent for matching people that are willing to spend a really long time on a game, but usually cant get a game with a "30 minute main time, 40 seconds /move " kind of setting.

So its good for slow games surely.
And i bet its also good for fast games, although i think Fischer will be the king of blitz in the future.

What happens with 10 second byoyomi is that one player could get a significant edge by playing at the 8th second, while the other randomly plays from the 3rd second to the 8th. IF you note KEGS , people rarely use the max of their 10 second byoyomi.

With hourglass, that different is taken into consideration (also in Fischer) which could level the amount of time the players use.

Hourglass will take away the ability of a player to use 8 seconds when playing against someone who only uses on average 5. In hourglass the faster player always ends up controlling the pace of the game. That is why I think it is an unnecessarily intrusive system, although it can be fun!

Kaya.gs wrote:
...After thinking a while about the point of competitiveness, i think Hourglass has less non-Go competition than the others.

If you consider that superior time management means you think more time than your opponent, then all other time systems fail to measure how much one player "outhought" their opponent.

A 10 sec byoyomi, where one player plays at 4sec, and the other at 8sec, means a 2:1 ratio of time spent.
That is practically impossible to happen on hourglass, that ratio cannot hold up.

By that line of reasoning, players quality of time management has less impact on hourglass than on any other time system, making it the lesser non-Go competitive mode.

What do you think ez4u.

Try hourglass a few times. I think you will find that the reality is different than you are currently theorizing.

Above it says, "If you consider that superior time management means you think more time than your opponent, then all other time systems fail to measure how much one player "outhought" their opponent."

Hourglass is the only timing system that allows your opponent to prevent you from displaying "superior time management". It is correct to say that the 2:1 ratio can not hold up. However, the problem is that the ratio will always fall to 1:1 at the level of the faster player. So play will proceed at 4 seconds instead of 8 seconds. This is a fundamental "feature" of hourglass.

Give me hourglass for when I am drinking and give me Fischer for when I am serious!

It's true that there is a major problem with Hourglass: You can play fast random moves to squeeze your opponent in time.
Kaya solved this nicely, but I would like to propose another solution, which I believe is more natural.

On chess clocks, there are 2 basic options you can add to any time system:

-Delay: A Delay of N seconds means that when your opponent clocks, you have N seconds before it affects your time.
-Increment: An increment of N seconds means that when you clock, N seconds are added to your time.

You can use these options with any time system to create new ones. Here's a famous example: Fisher time= Absolute time + increment.

Imagine you play a game with a real hourglass. Your referee arrives, holding the hourglass horizontally, to make sure both players have the same amount of time (sand). The chief referee gives the signal and the game begins. Your referee turns the hourglass as fast as he can, but of course there's a small ___A___. Imagine your referee is very old and slow, then the ___A___ would be bigger. No matter how fast your opponent plays, if you can play within that ___A___, you'll have no problem. Of course a good and fair referee gives the same constant ___A___ to both player.

What if the referee could turn the hourglass at the speed of light, but could also magically add sand on your side to give you an ___B___ only when you're in time trouble?

I think you can naturally find what A and B are. Personally, I think ___A___ offers a more natural solution. What do you think ?

ez4u wrote:

Kaya.gs wrote:
...After thinking a while about the point of competitiveness, i think Hourglass has less non-Go competition than the others.

If you consider that superior time management means you think more time than your opponent, then all other time systems fail to measure how much one player "outhought" their opponent.

A 10 sec byoyomi, where one player plays at 4sec, and the other at 8sec, means a 2:1 ratio of time spent.
That is practically impossible to happen on hourglass, that ratio cannot hold up.

By that line of reasoning, players quality of time management has less impact on hourglass than on any other time system, making it the lesser non-Go competitive mode.

What do you think ez4u.

Try hourglass a few times. I think you will find that the reality is different than you are currently theorizing.

Above it says, "If you consider that superior time management means you think more time than your opponent, then all other time systems fail to measure how much one player "outhought" their opponent."

Hourglass is the only timing system that allows your opponent to prevent you from displaying "superior time management". It is correct to say that the 2:1 ratio can not hold up. However, the problem is that the ratio will always fall to 1:1 at the level of the faster player. So play will proceed at 4 seconds instead of 8 seconds. This is a fundamental "feature" of hourglass.

Give me hourglass for when I am drinking and give me Fischer for when I am serious!

I scanned over the Redux. I also used to believe Fischer was the best timing system for go. I literally hate canadian, i think it has a serious issue with players losing before the time is up (like having to play 20 moves in 20 seconds). And byo-yomi is very inefficient, because time management makes actually the game longer and more clumsy (reading yose before answering an atari is super distracting, just to be able to gain a few seconds).

The problem with Fischer is related to what you mention that 40-60% of the time is spent on a few set of moves ,classicaly L&D situations or turning points.
The problem in Fischer is that you have the lowest minimum time of all time systems. So if you are depending on your bonus time, and one of those hard situations comes up, you will have less time to deal with it than with ANY other time system.

For fast paced games i have no doubt Fischer is best, period. But reality will show us .

Now leaving the "competitivity" of hourglass and into the ratio:

I think its a very good feature of the time system that time management is less of a skill. Now the drawback you mention(that of course bears a lot of weight) is that it will tend to move at the speed of the fastest player.

Being more strict, hourglass is more a 1:1*n ratio with n depending on the Differential time (how i call its "main time").

Someone playing 2 seconds faster than their opponent in average, needs 240 moves to make a 4 minute difference.
(Calculation: A plays, B plays, and B gets 2 more seconds. That means he needs 120 double-plays to make 240 seconds).

So if someone takes average 10 seconds, and his opponent 12 seconds, its likely that a 5-10 minute hourglass would be more than sufficient for the vast majority of games.
What the slower player is subject to is vulnerability to a difficult situation he has to spend a lot of time to think of.

Remember that we added a minimum time to prevent corruption, so you always get at least 10 seconds. If your opponent thinks his average (12 secs) , you will get 22 seconds.

My conclusion so far is that Kaya.gs's Hourglass reduces the effect of the ability of time management, and provides pressure to the slower player mostly in critical situations.

JeansebL wrote:It's true that there is a major problem with Hourglass: You can play fast random moves to squeeze your opponent in time.
Kaya solved this nicely, but I would like to propose another solution, which I believe is more natural.

On chess clocks, there are 2 basic options you can add to any time system:

-Delay: A Delay of N seconds means that when your opponent clocks, you have N seconds before it affects your time.
-Increment: An increment of N seconds means that when you clock, N seconds are added to your time.

You can use these options with any time system to create new ones. Here's a famous example: Fisher time= Absolute time + increment.

Imagine you play a game with a real hourglass. Your referee arrives, holding the hourglass horizontally, to make sure both players have the same amount of time (sand). The chief referee gives the signal and the game begins. Your referee turns the hourglass as fast as he can, but of course there's a small ___A___. Imagine your referee is very old and slow, then the ___A___ would be bigger. No matter how fast your opponent plays, if you can play within that ___A___, you'll have no problem. Of course a good and fair referee gives the same constant ___A___ to both player.

What if the referee could turn the hourglass at the speed of light, but could also magically add sand on your side to give you an ___B___ only when you're in time trouble?

I think you can naturally find what A and B are. Personally, I think ___A___ offers a more natural solution. What do you think ?

As we talked about it before, i think this is just a new time system. Define it and call it the "Jean-Sebastian timing". then you pay for a feature and maybe its on the server .

I think the major problem with this timing is that it will always become a fast game. If you limit the hourglass to 3 minutes to guarantee the game finishes that day, you end up with a situation where no move can take more than 3 minutes. For a serious game, this is very short. As said before, the better blitzer will always end up beating down the slower player.

Yeah, you can add delays or bonus times, but then you're back at some other timing system with a novelty on top of it. Hourglass would be made redundant at that point.

Kaya.gs wrote:Remember that we added a minimum time to prevent corruption, so you always get at least 10 seconds. If your opponent thinks his average (12 secs) , you will get 22 seconds.

So if I start with, say, 12 sec. and use 10 sec. for my move, the result on my clock is not 2 sec., but 10 sec.? Then after my opponent takes x sec. for his move, the result on my clock will be x+10 sec.?

Being more strict, hourglass is more a 1:1*n ratio with n depending on the Differential time (how i call its "main time").

Someone playing 2 seconds faster than their opponent in average, needs 240 moves to make a 2 minute difference.
(Calculation: A plays, B plays, and B gets 2 more seconds. That means he needs 120 double-plays to make 240 seconds).

So if someone takes average 10 seconds, and his opponent 12 seconds, its likely that a 5-10 minute hourglass would be more than sufficient for the vast majority of games.
What the slower player is subject to is vulnerability to a difficult situation he has to spend a lot of time to think of.

Say that the players start with 5 min. Showing the slower player's clock first, in seconds, we have (300, 300). Then the slower player takes 12 sec. and the clocks show (288, 312). Then the faster player takes 10 sec., and the clocks show (298,302), a difference of 4 sec. The difference grows at 2 sec./move, so to get a 2 min. difference takes only 60 moves. The average number of moves for the slower player's clock to lose 2 min. is 120.