Life In 19x19

shapenaji wrote:[
Would be hard, but then blitz is rarely played in tournaments, and really this does a better job of enforcing schedules in longer games than in shorter ones.

For an hour game, adding 2 min would not be difficult though.

This does not seem to enforce a tournament schedule at all.

Fischer time adds time if you do something, play a stone, move the game along.

This system adds tournament time for doing nothing.

Two old friends who enjoy slow games are paired under this system.
They start the game off with 100 passes each.

So much for your schedule.

Horibe wrote:

shapenaji wrote:[
Would be hard, but then blitz is rarely played in tournaments, and really this does a better job of enforcing schedules in longer games than in shorter ones.

For an hour game, adding 2 min would not be difficult though.

This does not seem to enforce a tournament schedule at all.

Fischer time adds time if you do something, play a stone, move the game along.

This system adds tournament time for doing nothing.

Two old friends who enjoy slow games are paired under this system.
They start the game off with 100 passes each.

So much for your schedule.

The game ends when you have 2-4 passes in succession. Also, in order for two players to do this, they would need to collude in fixing the structure and also ignore their own best interests, the latter is unlikely, and the former is an obvious violation of the rules. Players are not allowed to fix games.

Horibe wrote:

shapenaji wrote:[
Would be hard, but then blitz is rarely played in tournaments, and really this does a better job of enforcing schedules in longer games than in shorter ones.

For an hour game, adding 2 min would not be difficult though.

This does not seem to enforce a tournament schedule at all.

Fischer time adds time if you do something, play a stone, move the game along.

This system adds tournament time for doing nothing.

Two old friends who enjoy slow games are paired under this system.
They start the game off with 100 passes each.

So much for your schedule.

To be fair, no time system short of absolute time limits with no delay will support a schedule if you have two paired opponents colluding against it (realistically, in the vast majority of tournaments they could just set the clocks with more time when the TD wasn't looking).

With apologies to Robert Jasiek, any ruleset/tournament design that doesn't give the TD sufficient powers to deal with edge cases like that is defective.

hyperpape wrote:With apologies to Robert Jasiek, any ruleset/tournament design that doesn't give the TD sufficient powers to deal with edge cases like that is defective.

But... But... I just said that the TD DOES have powers to deal with this. And in order to keep the game from ending (and give both players extra time, the pattern would need to go like this:

PASS, Play, Play, Pass, Play, Play, Pass...

Now... First of all, this is a game in which white gets two moves and then black gets two moves.
No matter how you do this, if you can't have two passes in a row then you're stuck playing something that is not go.

You're telling me that two old friends who play go together don't want to play go?

I just think this Edge case is frankly ridiculous...

I could've been clearer: that was directed at Horibe, not you, and my point was that you should just give the TD the discretion necessary to handle such strange cases.

hyperpape wrote:I could've been clearer: that was directed at Horibe, not you, and my point was that you should just give the TD the discretion necessary to handle such strange cases.

Ah makes more sense now

shapenaji wrote:

hyperpape wrote:I could've been clearer: that was directed at Horibe, not you, and my point was that you should just give the TD the discretion necessary to handle such strange cases.

Ah makes more sense now

I agree with all comments. However, it happens. I have run events where, halfway through a round I have discovered that two players have simply not used a clock because they do not like them. I have come upon a very slow player who claimed a clock did not work, and informed a rather timid child that they would not use one. Two hours later the bored to death child lost.

I agree the td should have discretion to deal with this, but it can be a pain when it comes up, particularly when the delay has already occurred.

shapenaji wrote:

hyperpape wrote:With apologies to Robert Jasiek, any ruleset/tournament design that doesn't give the TD sufficient powers to deal with edge cases like that is defective.

But... But... I just said that the TD DOES have powers to deal with this. And in order to keep the game from ending (and give both players extra time, the pattern would need to go like this:

PASS, Play, Play, Pass, Play, Play, Pass...

Now... First of all, this is a game in which white gets two moves and then black gets two moves.
No matter how you do this, if you can't have two passes in a row then you're stuck playing something that is not go.

You're telling me that two old friends who play go together don't want to play go?

I just think this Edge case is frankly ridiculous...

I would think the easier case for them (in most rule sets) would be Player A: pass, Player B: pass (enter scoring phase) player B demands resumption, it is player A's move with extra time from passing....not that this is really any less ridiculous.....but it avoids the move twice in a row issue...You could add a rule that if you resume play after passing the credit is removed, however then there is always the option of canceling your opponent's time-adding-pass via the same mechanism as above. If you say only the player who orders the resumption loses their bonus time, then you add the extra step of A pass, B Pass, B resumes, A plays, B passes, A passes, A resumes, and we end up in the same place.....Doesn't it make you wish you could just add a rule saying "don't be an idiot!"