Life In 19x19

Kirby, your personal opinion is still irrelevant. Of course you can ask people's personal opinions and likings how they want to blitz in Kgs, but from tournament perspective, you need to also consider how chosen time control perform in general use. That means in practice how well we can maintain tournament schedule and how much there will be time losses from winning positions. These are nontrivial aspects are completely irrelevant from your personal likings or dislikings. And if you really like to perform argumentation that branches deeper than just your personal likings, then you do need to take in concideration broader scope than just YOURSELF.

If we set up e.g. time settings 75min + 1x1min byouyomi, we will get games that will last anything from 150 minutes to 350 minutes. And in addition to that we will get a bunch of games where in winning position top players are quarter second too slow in pressing the clock and they lose on time. From the perspective of tournament schedule this is just intolerable situation. In pro world where only one game is played per day, situation is little different and you do not need to worry about the schedule. But when there is three games to be fitted on single day, one game should not last unpredictable long. And of course we all follow those who are the most slow players. And indeed there are those who will take advantage of every extra second that we offer them!

But if we choose fischer time bonus wisely, we can set up that every games will last no more than e.g. 180-210 minutes. This way games are predictable and we can make tight schedule without too much waiting. So with wise usage of Fischer we can prevent both main problems of Japanese byouyomi: no accidental timeloses and no loose schedules. This is the point and people seems to have difficult time understanding this. I do not understand why?

(By the way, there is going to be in winter time a tournament in Finland where time settings are 75 min + 1x30 sec and there are three games planned for Saturday. I will gladly register people's predictions about how badly tournament schedule will fail and how many top group games will be decided by time.)

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

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

So you have difficult time understanding what loose schedule means? Is that so?

Liisa wrote:Kirby, your personal opinion is still irrelevant. Of course you can ask people's personal opinions and likings how they want to blitz in Kgs, but from tournament perspective, you need to also consider how chosen time control perform in general use. That means in practice how well we can maintain tournament schedule and how much there will be time losses from winning positions. These are nontrivial aspects are completely irrelevant from your personal likings or dislikings. And if you really like to perform argumentation that branches deeper than just your personal likings, then you do need to take in concideration broader scope than just YOURSELF.

If we set up e.g. time settings 75min + 1x1min byouyomi, we will get games that will last anything from 150 minutes to 350 minutes. And in addition to that we will get a bunch of games where in winning position top players are quarter second too slow in pressing the clock and they lose on time. From the perspective of tournament schedule this is just intolerable situation. In pro world where only one game is played per day, situation is little different and you do not need to worry about the schedule. But when there is three games to be fitted on single day, one game should not last unpredictable long. And of course we all follow those who are the most slow players. And indeed there are those who will take advantage of every extra second that we offer them!

But if we choose fischer time bonus wisely, we can set up that every games will last no more than e.g. 180-210 minutes. This way games are predictable and we can make tight schedule without too much waiting. So with wise usage of Fischer we can prevent both main problems of Japanese byouyomi: no accidental timeloses and no loose schedules. This is the point and people seems to have difficult time understanding this. I do not understand why?

(By the way, there is going to be in winter time a tournament in Finland where time settings are 75 min + 1x30 sec and there are three games planned for Saturday. I will gladly register people's predictions about how badly tournament schedule will fail and how many top group games will be decided by time.)

It's because nobody perceives a problem, because everything already works okay somehow. It's hard for people to see how this rules change would make everyone's life more wonderful.

'Number of top board games decided by time' seems like a meaningless statistic, incidentally.

Have there been any Go tournaments that used Fischer timing, or is the discussion of merits of Fischer purely theoretical?

From the theoretical standpoint Fischer does seem very pretty and appealing, but who knows what practical issues could come up.

Yes, there were some tournaments that used Fischer time. However, it was mostly used as an "optional alternative" for a fraction of the boards, because there were not enough capable clocks available. I think that because of this it often left an impression of "exotic and unusual" instead of "practical and useful". Where it was used for all boards, people seemed to be either indifferent or convinced.

Liisa, I do not have an inherent problem with using Fischer time. Fischer time is also a good system for tournament timekeeping, in my opinion.

What I have a problem with is when you call my preference toward byo-yomi irrelevant or stupid.

While I don't really have a problem with Fischer time, I don't see any real problems that byo-yomi brings about, either. As for the "loose scheduling" issue, Fischer time might address this smoothly, but I have not experienced problems with this in the past. For monthly ratings tournaments in California, for example, we do staggered self-pairing, which works pretty well. If you're done with your game, and you want to play somebody else around your level, you find somebody and play them.

For more serious tournaments, staggered self-pairing probably doesn't work as well. But at the same time, I don't mind waiting for awhile to play the next game, either. I had to do this at the Oza a few years ago, for example. It was a pretty cool experience, and a lot of fun.

So I don't have a problem with Fischer time, and I'm not trying to force my personal preference toward byo-yomi. However, I think that if people like byo-yomi, and it provides no serious problems, it is still a great system to use. This is the point that I'm trying to convey.

What made me slightly upset is when you called my preference irrelevant or stupid. I don't think that a personal preference toward a timing system is either irrelevant or stupid, especially if you will be participating in a particular tournament.

That's why people sometimes vote on things. If enough people prefer a particular option, it's good to please the masses. I only wish to express my (single) vote on this matter.

DrStraw wrote:Interesting. The pro method is no time limits. They are a modern invention since the creation of the Nihon Kiin.

Nothing against pedantry, but it ought to serve a purpose. After 80 years, I think it's ok to say time limits are part of the professional method.

DrStraw wrote:Nonsense. It is the ONLY thing that is relevant. The thread is entitled "Do you like it?", not "Is it the best?".

Although specifying the details is a difficult philosophical question, it's generally agreed that there is some connection between these two issues.

palapiku wrote:Have there been any Go tournaments that used Fischer timing, or is the discussion of merits of Fischer purely theoretical?

From the theoretical standpoint Fischer does seem very pretty and appealing, but who knows what practical issues could come up.

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.

I like it. Simple and easy

TMark wrote:No, since it is not a system that works easily with analog clocks. Nearly all of the tournaments in Britain continue to use such clocks, so the only way to operate byoyomi would be to have someone sitting by the board reading out the seconds. Electronic clocks are wonderful machines bu the best way to set them is with a six-pound hammer. While analog clocks will continue to be used, by far the bast time systems will be a) sudden death and b) Canadian overtime.

Best wishes.

mobile applications now do the job. I mean byo- yomi.

Like it better than losing on time, but hate being in it

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Nonsense. It is the ONLY thing that is relevant. The thread is entitled "Do you like it?", not "Is it the best?".

Although specifying the details is a difficult philosophical question, it's generally agreed that there is some connection between these two issues.

What utter nonsense. Most people are so busy watching football and drinking beer to realize that what they like best is not the best thing for them.

DrStraw wrote:...Most people are so busy watching football and drinking beer to realize that what they like best is not the best thing for them.

I like this quote. I do not have an interest in watching football, and I don't drink beer a ton, but I want to try to remember this underlying message, and try to become a better person and better go player.

DrStraw wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Nonsense. It is the ONLY thing that is relevant. The thread is entitled "Do you like it?", not "Is it the best?".

Although specifying the details is a difficult philosophical question, it's generally agreed that there is some connection between these two issues.

What utter nonsense. Most people are so busy watching football and drinking beer to realize that what they like best is not the best thing for them.

There's many things wrong with this post, but to start with, surely you realize that I wasn't saying what people like is necessarily what's best for them, right?