Byo-yomi: Do you like it?

[daniel_the_smith]

Yeah. Sounds like fun but not like go.

[Mcgreag]

Question is, how many top group games should be decided with accidental time loss that has nothing to do with actual time pressure in EGF A -class tournaments. Everyone should give a rough figure what is correct percentage. Then we can compare and calculate how many games are being decided by clock rather than skill with different timing systems. And choose that system that gives a probability that is closest to that what is our tolerance for accidental time losses.

Even if you personally like Japanese byouyomi, you cannot use that an argument that we should use it on the tournaments.

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.

[Liisa]

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.

[Kirby]

Why is wms so very much against Fisher time on KGS?

wms: I personally don't plan on implementing Fischer time, because it doesn't seem well suited to go. In Fischer time, you can move fast in the beginning to build up a time pool that you use late in the game. For Chess, this makes sense, because as the game goes on you get into less-well-known areas and need to think more. In Go, most strong players think the most in the early and early-mid games, and move faster and faster as the game progresses because the decisions become easier. Fischer time does not work well for that style of time use, so I do not think it will lead to better games.
PS - Just thought I should add, I've been proven wrong before on things like this, so if somebody demonstrates to me that Fischer is indeed more fun than Byo-Yomi or Canadian, I may implement it later! But for now, it just doesn't look interesting enough.

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

[zinger]

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:

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.

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?

[RazorBrain]

I've only just started playing with Fischer time. But I must say I like it. The purpose of timing a game is to ensure fair and even use of thinking time without turning a match into a marathon of caffeine tolerance. Fischer time seems to reward steady play, which is the point, no?

Beyond Fischer, I prefer Canadian over Japanese styles. With Canadian I can glance at the clock during my opponents move to see how I'm doing. With Japanese, I feel I'm looking several times during my move to ensure I'm not to close to the limit. Canadian therefore gives me a smoother, less frantic experience. Again, I feel like Canadian rewards players for steady play by giving them any leftover thinking time at the end of each timing round. I can't really enjoy the extra 10 seconds in Japanese Byo-Yomi if I move quickly . . . hehehehe.

[Kirby]

I actually have a harder time with Canadian.

Having 4 moves for one minute, for example, is something I would try to convert to 1 move every 15 seconds. I don't like doing this division for every move I make.

If I don't do the division, I sometimes end up with 8 moves to make in the last 10 seconds, which is no good at all.

I can slap down one move quickly if time is short. But it's harder for me to slap down 8 moves quickly in 10 seconds.

[Harleqin]

What is this Bronstein/time-delay thing?

It is a bit similar to Bonus time. At the start of each move, your time reserve only begins to count down after a certain delay.

You could say that it is like Bonus time, but you are forced to use at least the time increment at each move (otherwise the rest of the increment is spilt).

[Javaness]

What is this Bronstein/time-delay thing?

It is a bit similar to Bonus time. At the start of each move, your time reserve only begins to count down after a certain delay.

You could say that it is like Bonus time, but you are forced to use at least the time increment at each move (otherwise the rest of the increment is spilt).

I like Bronstein time actually. If I had a stock of digital clocks I would probably use this. Bronstein's aim is (IIRC) to eliminate the time taken picking up and putting down the pieces.

[Liisa]

I like Bronstein time actually. If I had a stock of digital clocks I would probably use this. Bronstein's aim is (IIRC) to eliminate the time taken picking up and putting down the pieces.

Bronstein's delay can be also thought to guide players for good playing habits by not rewarding instant moves. Thus it gives the same grace and glory to the go what is the idea with Japanese byouyomi but of course without thread for instant death.

(notice: a player who has good playing habits is a person, whom I personally enjoy to play with. So in this case it is just my personal preference.)

[topazg]

What is this Bronstein/time-delay thing?

It is a bit similar to Bonus time. At the start of each move, your time reserve only begins to count down after a certain delay.

You could say that it is like Bonus time, but you are forced to use at least the time increment at each move (otherwise the rest of the increment is spilt).

Well, not quite. A 5 min + 10 secs / move, just means that if you move in 6 secs, you only get a 6 sec increment. The increment is fixed to the smaller of the base increment value (10 secs) or the amount of time it took for you to move.

I prefer Fischer timing as I like the time management advantages of Canadian overtime and, for me, the possibility of "earning" time gives some of this value.

[CSamurai]

I'm going to throw this out here, because it hasn't been said yet, and I'm... well, feeling like saying it.

I just don't care.

Byo Yomi, Canadian, Fischer, Absolut (Now with higher proof) as long as the time constraints are consistent with the tournament's needs, and consistent across the boards of the tournament, why should I care?

Everyone plays with the same time constraint, everyone plays.

What does it matter one timing method or another? Time constraints are made to push the games into finishing in a reasonable amount of time. No one expects the same game to be played under byo-yomi as would be played under absolute time, no one expects the same game to be played with no time constraints as would be played under blitz timing.

Tournaments, however, are only interested in one thing: With this set of rules, with this set of players, who wins?

As long as the rules and time settings are internally consistent, I really couldn't care less.

I understand that there are people out there deeply engaged in what ruleset/timesetting/otherdetail is 'best'. But it doesn't matter. Play go. Play the best move you can. Everything else is just.. distraction.

But then, I'm a crazy 5k.

C Sam.

Side note, if you click 'reply', then sign in, it takes you to a new post thing rather than a reply thing. Very funny. Good thing we can delete our own posts now.

[Exologist]

All I ever play are either no time limit (at the club in person) or Byo-Yomi on KGS. I have a feeling I'd like Canadian better, but I never got around to finding a good amount to make it.

[mohsart]

I just don't care.

Word!

/Mats

[hyperpape]

Zinger: I suspect that one difference regarding clocks is that tournament chess players are typically more serious than tournament go players. Because the pool of go players is small, most people who play in person play at clubs and naturally end up attending tournaments. In contrast, I suspect many chess players with an equal interest in the game just play with friends because they will have more friends who play chess. Asking participants to provide their own clocks would help discourage participation.