Sorry, but you fail. The troll here is you, who makes almost no attempt to express something meaningful while quipping cynical one liners.

To Kirby, I agree that calling your personal preference irrelevant is rude, especially in a thread with a title such as this one. However, I also think it's important to recognize that threads are dynamic and the topic can easily shift to something that perhaps you did not originally intend. Why fight it? A similar thing happened to me a while back, when I made a brief comment about orientalism, and the whole forum erupted into a discussion of political correctness - something that was, in my mind, never at issue.

Go players in general seem very committed to traditions and to things they perceive to just work. Why change it if it isn't broken, right? Byo-yomi is not a bad time system at all; in fact, I like it and use it all the time on KGS. From a tournament director's perspective, it's reasonable if the periods are short and few enough. But if you're going to keep the periods to 20 seconds or less, Fischer and Bronstein are both simply more effective at evenly distributing the time pressure. I have often heard the ridiculous "argument" in the past that Canadian time is great because it is dynamic; well, it doesn't get any more dynamic than Fischer time!

Of course byo-yomi periods of 1 minute or more are wonderful for slow players like myself, and I love it, but it can never be a reality for amateur tournaments with multiple games in one day.

I have made several meaningful posts to this thread and have been totally ignores by Lisa, who want to write her own agenda.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Ignoring this recent debate, I'll just add that Byo-yomi time is ok, but I greatly prefer Fischer time, mostly for the reasons already stated relating to time management.

Additionally, I think that more of an effort should be make to use Fischer time at tournaments. Most people either seem to be in favor or neutral to Fischer time so I think a wider use (such as on KGS!) could make people warm up to what I believe to be a better system.

_________________
"There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level." -- Bruce Lee

I agree. I don't want to argue about things anymore. I think I was just flustered at some of the PMs that I had been getting (that's why I started this thread). But I am glad to be done with arguing about this.

After all, I can think of DrStraw's advice. While I may "like arguing", it's not what's best for me. So I'm going to try to do something more productive now.

_________________
be immersed

Like productive arguments!

Ah, the quintessence of Internet arguing.

Of course time management is part of the game nowadays. However originally it was not, and matches lasted days, weeks or even months. The necessity to finish a match in acceptable time limits (whatever these are) makes the time factor be part of the match. To keep the original spirit of the game, the time factor should be minimized though (just my opinion of course). Each time system has its merits and flaws.

Sudden Death: That's the worst case. As you don't know in the beginning how many stones you will play during the game, it is difficult to make efficient use of time. It is probable that you either have a lot of time left, or you are fighting to make your last moves as quickly as possible in order not to run out of time.

Ing time: Not much better than Sudden Death. It allows extra time, but the connection between overtime and penalty is even more difficult to handle than just thinking about time, since you have to take care of two things at the same time. The merit is, that you never run out of time.

Canadian overtime (usually 15/5 or 20/5 or progressive, increasing the number of stones by 5 for each period): The merit is that you can have some opportunity to manage within each period: So if you neead to ponder 3 minutes on a single move, it is possible (though you have to set the other stones within two minutes then). The flaw is the same as in sudden death, though on a smaller scale: it is difficult to make efficient use of time since it is possible that you still have some minutes left or you are fighting to hammer the last stones on the board within the time limit.

Japanese byoyomi: Its merit is that you have a guaranteed time to move for each stone. The disadvantages are that once you have set your stone, the remaining time is lost; and you cannot ponder long enough about a difficult move, if you need to. The latter of course depends on the number of byoyomi periods. If the number is only around 3-5, I would say that japanese byoyomi is inferior to Canadian overtime. If it is 20-30, then it would be superior.

Fischer timing: It combines the merit of all the time systems above, and even more: Since you can accumulate as much time as you know you need in difficult situations and since you are not limited by a certain arbitrary time (such as the 5-minutes-period in Canadian overtime), it is much more flexible and elegant. One minor flaw is that in the beginning it looks as if you had less time than with the other systems (but this is really only a very small issue).

Conclusion: Fischer timing is the best time management of the mentioned, followed by Japanese byoyomi and Canadian overtime. For these two it depends on the exact settings to decide which one is superior. Ing time and Sudden Death are the worst time managements.

Short answer: yes (longer answer available upon request).

_________________
Offending ad removed

Technical note:

In my experience, for Fischer time XX min/YY sec, YY should be about half of XX, with a "window" of about 1/3 to 2/3. If YY is bigger, the time management gets inflexible; if it is smaller, the possible accidental time pressure is too big.

You can quickly determine how long a game of 300 moves will last (this is a good upper bound for game lengths; more moves will not significantly change the overall time, and 300 is easy to calculate): overall time T300 is (2*XX + 5*YY) min.

30/30 has T300 = 210 min = 3:30 h.
I think that the ratio of basic to bonus time is not well chosen here; I would rather use 55/20 for this game length.

25/10 has T300 = 100 min = 1:40 h.
This is a rather fast-paced setting. One can comfortably use this for a tournament schedule with round starts 2 hours apart.

5/2 has T300 = 20 min.
This is a typical Blitz setting. The overall time resembles the old "10 min sudden death".

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Wow, this is a fascinating thread

Firstly, some points from other posts:



This is a logical fallacy. In a game where the end of main time is not reached, the sum of actual thinking time per player will not be the same. In a game where one person has had more byo-yomi periods than the other, the sum of actual thinking time per player will not be the same. In fact, if my opponent pops out for a toilet break on my time or their time, the sum of actual thinking time won't even be reflected in the clocks. Of course, the other key point in this debate is the fact everyone is thinking on the other person's time anyway. People have a time control, they can use it as they like. If there are 5 minutes to make 25 moves, they can use all those 5 minutes or not. I fail to see any argument for "balanced thinking time" that canadian overtime is worse for regarding balanced thinking time.



This is a complete straw man. Yes, their view is 100% valuable on whether or not they like the car. Whether the car is better is not the question posed, and not one they have given a view on. So judging the value of their opinion on an unasked question is rather irrelevant.



There is also the fact that the other player is setting the timer - this is also quite possible to cheat on.



I like these rules of thumb, always useful to have. I also agree that the idea of working them on upper bound lengths is sensible.


For my part, I don't like or dislike any of the systems particularly. I understand them, and that's enough, I will play them accordingly. I have been in a tournament with 50 minutes main time and 40 stones in 3 minutes overtime. It was so obviously crazy fast that I treated the game as sudden death so I didn't have to worry about it. If people thought they could handle that speed, they could go into it if they wanted to. I fail to see how it was intrinsically bad.

As with most things, if there is a goal, systems can be objectively weighed up against the targets of the goal. For example, if we choose that we don't want time pressure, then either byo-yomi or fischer time with one minute or more extra per move works very well - better most likely than Canadian overtime because it is very easy to be aware that the increment time is for every one move, so no moves/minute calculation is required.

If we choose that we have a strict schedule that absolutely cannot move under any circumstances, we can use sudden death. If people are unhappy with sudden death and a secondary goal is happy tournament participants, an easily understandable timing system that allows for this may be better - Fischer 25/10 or 40/5 depending on the urgency of not letting overtime control the game time.

If there are objectives, you can pick systems that fit the best, and you have criteria on which you can objectively compare different options.. If there aren't, there is no such thing as a better system, just a bunch of equally valid opinions. "I like Japanese byo-yomi because it's easy to understand and I don't like sudden death" is just as good as anyone else's argument regardless of theoretical support on pros and cons.

This post will not add to the discussion of relative merits of one system versus another, though it does explain my thoughts on the issue.

I see there being three groups: tournament directors, high-level competitors (anyone who has a serious chance to win a significant prize/has money on the line) and the more casual player. I speak from the third group, which I believe is the overwhelming majority. From my perspective, I love byo-yomi. I like it, not because of any superiority, but because I understand it and am used to it. I see a real and serious benefit in a system that everyone involved is used to. Even if another system is technically superior, if players have to spend any time at all remembering how the system works, the system is less good than what everyone knows how to use. Of course, I could become used to any system in little enough time, but tournaments are stressful enough without worrying about time settings. I think that the differences between time systems only matter in higher-level play than I can manage, where a few added seconds here or there makes a difference. The status quo for the AGA is byo-yomi with AGA rules, both of which are simple enough to explain to a new player in a minute or two. Other regions are used to Canadian, which is also easy enough to explain, especially if the player is 'raised' on it instead of a different one. I support the status quo for the simple reason that it's good enough for any level of play I expect myself to ever see.

I mentioned three groups:
TD: Likes the status quo because it's easiest to manage with clocks existing, as well as the players understanding it.
Top Player: Wants the ideal system. More power to them.
Us: Wants to play some go

So yeah, I like byo-yomi in any setting that has clocks that can support it. It's good enough, and there's something to be said for that.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

I prefer the Japanese system to the Canadian one.

I never know how fast to play with Canadian time; it's the only system that I have multiple accidental time losses in. If I used it more maybe I'd get used to it, but as it is I really dislike it.

Fischer time sounds best to me, too, I wish it was more common.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

No. Ing time is sudden death, and you do run out of time.

Ing time is a fixed time period. Period.

The total time is divided in half. The first half is "main" time. The remaining half is divided into 3 equal penalty periods for "overtime". That's all the time you get. Unlike Byo-yomi or Canadian, which could go on forever.

It was designed to have a predictable schedule for finishing games in a tournament setting.

But even when using Ing rules, very few tournaments, that I know of, actually use this time system, since the rule allows TDs to choose between it or the more traditional byo-yomi system.

I've designed a time setting that's better than all the above ones (disclaimer: this is my opinion, not an universal truth). It works as following:

- The players get, each, an absolute time to play the game. For example, one hours.
- If one player runs out of time, he's lost the game.
- If the game ends before that happens, when scoring, take the difference of the remaining time from both players and convert it in points for the player who has more time left at a ratio of 1 minute (rounded down) -> 1 point.

Why do I think it is better?:

- works with any kind of clock.
- it's simple.
- the game has a maximum duration, wich is great for tournaments. Byo-yomi can theoretically drag on almost forever.
- You don't worry with time management, you just want to play fast, since every minute is worth a point.
- That also makes the game much more exciting. Games tend to turn wild, because, if you make the position complicated, you opponent will likely lose some points thinking. Overplays can be advantageous to you even if your opponent responds correctly. But be wary, since poor moves will cause your loss. A close endgame can be a real blast to play and you will see moves that you wouldn't usually see were you playing with other time settings.

Disadvantages:

- Every game turns into blitz. For me blitz is the perfect way to play, because thinkings too much bores me, though I know a lot of people wont like it.
- For the same reason, it will not be suited to tournaments that want slow play.
- If you want time settings that show a go game where players are just trying to play the best moves possible, it won't work either.

@mgsuttar: with that time setting, you're not even playing Go.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Yeah. Sounds like fun but not like go.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

You have not shown that in either of the 2 timeloss situations you have mentioned, (Dinerchtein in Leksand and van Zeijst in Tampere) Fisher time would have made a difference. In both situations the player did not pay attention to how much time they had left and let it run out. The result would have been the same in both Fisher and Byo-yomi.

If a fisher time clock does not audibly inform you that you have only 60/30 sec left and you don't look at it then it won't matter how much time you can build up by playing fast, the time will run out and you will lose.

There are arguments for fisher time but that it would stop people who doesn't pay attention to the clock from losing on time is not one them.

Of course not. But you missed the whole point. it is not about preventing time losses altogether but reducing the probability of timeloss while preventing tournament schedule being too loose.

Idea of Fischer is to make the time pressure smooth and controllable but still severe. Japanese byouyomi cannot never be neither smooth nor controllable because you get maximum benefit from it if you start playing in byouyomi as early as possible and you need to let the margin to death as close as possible. I.e. you had to move 4-8 seconds before the flag drops. So to gain maximum benefit you need to gamble a lot, because you can gain an hour or more thinking time for the game if you take risks and go early to the byouyomi. It is completely different thing to have 4-8 second safety margin (with byouyomi) than 4-8 minutes safety margin (with slow Fischer). Of course no time control system will not let you to think as long as you want without looking the clock every few minutes, when you are in time trouble.

However this is already only repeating what has been said early. So short answer to your question is that with Fischer you can keep proper safety margin to time loss, thus it is not very probable that you will lose on time by accident (i.e. forget to monitor the clock constantly). The bigger safety margin you keep, the less probable time loss will be. In byouyomi you cannot keep any safety margin, because you had to play constantly knife on your throat in order to get maximum benefit. With Fischer you can keep 10 minute safety margin without losing anything but, well, ten minutes of your time. Which is rather small portion from 6 hour game.

More complete discussion: http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSIssueFischerDiscussion

_________________
be immersed

Personally I think either Japan byo-yomi or Canada byo-yomi is perfectly fine.

I do agree that bonus time ("Fischer" time) is the best. I have played this at club with my Excalibur, it was wonderfully easy. I think the main reason it is not used is:


Right, existing systems work OK.

As for wms, I think his reasoning on this particular issue is absurd (no offense Bill!). Players use their time in many different ways per their own styles and habits; there is no evidence at all that most players use more time in the opening. That said, KGS is his, he can do as he wishes, and frankly it's a great service that most of us tremendously appreciate, and works just fine as is (see above).

As for tournaments, it seems bizarre to me that the organizers are responsible for providing clocks, or any equipment. I played tournament chess for years and almost every player always brought their own clock, sometimes two, and boards and pieces too.

What is this Bronstein/time-delay thing?

_________________
Main Entry: zing·er Pronunciation: \ˈziŋ-ər\
1 : something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock
2 : a pointed witty remark or retort