Life In 19x19

TMark wrote:Canadian overtime comes second, because then only one person, my opponent, has to count out any stones; I never get into any form of overtime because I don't take the game that seriously and I usually plan to play within the time limits.

Mark, this is egoistical and subjective argument where you present that you like Canadian, because you do not need to count stones by yourself. I do not see what is the relevance of this argument.

However "I don't take the game that seriously", is for me that you are saying that you are not taking go that seriously. It is not personal insult aimed towards you. But some people do take go very seriously and those are those who will be on the top of the rating list and will gather all the prize money.

I take go also very seriously, but for me it is impossible to have fun if I and my opponent does not give everything in given time limits.

Mark, having not enough digital clocks is of course one problem, but it is not a problem in Finnish tournaments for example, because here is enough digital clocks for any local tournament. Last game that I played with analog clock was perhaps on year 2008 (I do not remember) and I do play go every week in tournaments and go club.

In general, Mark, it is not relevant to express your personal likings and dislikings, but to evaluate how fair the system is and how difficult given system is for those humans to handle who do want to squeeze every second that is given for them. It goes without saying absolute timecontrol may be fair for both, but it is almost impossible to play serious go with it, because squeezing every second for reading and calculating is practically impossible.

There are of course severe problems if applied to analog clock, but I clearly stated that problems are approximately same sized than are with Canadian overtime. And later you did support your claim with egoistical argument and started meta discussion.

In argumentation of timing system it is required to take in account that there are valid objective arguments and invalid subjective arguments.

Valid arguments are:

* How well tournament schedule can be maintained.
* How likely is the loss on time in winning position.
* How much there is time spilled.
* What is overall frequency of time losses.
* How equally timing system treats players.
* What is the availability of digital clocks.
* How much given timing system gives restrictions players how to allocate their time.
* And how smooth and how severe timing system is

These are objective criteria for timing system. And they are completely independent of subjective arguments such as, "I like Canadian because I am used to it, when I play in KGS."

Subjective arguments are nice, but they are completely overdriven by any of these objective criteria that were given above.

Liisa wrote:In argumentation of timing system it is required to take in account that there are valid objective arguments and invalid subjective arguments.

There's no such thing as a valid subjective argument?

yoyoma wrote:

Liisa wrote:In argumentation of timing system it is required to take in account that there are valid objective arguments and invalid subjective arguments.

There's no such thing as a valid subjective argument?

This is good and non-obvious question.

If subjective argument is valid, then we see it's impact in increasing time losses in statistical sense. But then subjective is no longer subjective, but we may measure it in objective sense. If we do not see this impact in statistics, then that particular argument is not valid argument.

It might be nice, but it's importance is always less than objective criteria for timing system.

Add:
Subjective arguments are also morally wrong, because they are always inherently egoistic. That is because it is irrelevant information, what you like, but according general moral principles it is relevant for you to consider what does your opponent want for timing system.

Well it had to happen eventually, even in our friendly new digs here at 19x19. I have put the first user on my ignore list.

EGF rating committee finally achieved resolution how to deal with Fischer timing.

New minimum requirements are:

class A: 45 15 (adjusted time for T240: 2×75min)
class B: 30 10 (adjusted time for T240: 2×50min)
class C: 20 5 (adjusted time for T240: 2×30min)

I have done some practical studying and I have come to conclusion that T240 is better than T300 for calculating Fischer adjusted times. From this aspect current decision is good. However, given minimum times for "basic time" are too restrictive. With Fischer timing basic time is meaningless concept, therefore it should not be too restrictive.

Current decision is still provisional and it must be approved in AGM. But it can be used before and it will appear on EGD as soon as webmaster can make appropriate modifications for EGD software and EGF rating page.

I would personally prefer minimum times continuing with moderate approach, but liberal enough that tournament organizers may freely choose their preferred time control:

Class A: 35 20 (adjusted: 75 min)
Class B: 20 15 (adjusted: 50 min)
Class C: 10 10 (adjusted: 30 min)

I have averaged the length of the last 33 of my KGS games that were counted: 267 moves. I do not think that you should base this calculation on less than that.

zinger wrote:Well it had to happen eventually, even in our friendly new digs here at 19x19. I have put the first user on my ignore list.

I think ignore lists are a dangerous thing. If a user shows unacceptable behavior they should be dealt with by the community.

@Liisa: Your behavior towards TMark is completely unacceptable. If you are unable to have discussions in a civil manner, please remove yourself from the forum until such time as you are again able to be civil.

I second that Liisa's comments are both sophomoric and silly. In particular, for someone who has such firm ideas about logic and valid argumentation, her comments about the immorality of subjective reasoning are strangely lacking in a logical justification (that's not an invitation to add one--digging a deeper hole and all that...)

Lastly, I can't help but say that the EGD has a view about TMark's seriousness.

Harleqin wrote:I have averaged the length of the last 33 of my KGS games that were counted: 267 moves. I do not think that you should base this calculation on less than that.

You should also count kgs games, that were not counted...

Also it is not good to look average, but those games that are in the shortest end of typical games. I played last evening two counted club games and they were about 215 moves and 230 moves in length.

T300 will lead just too short games, imo.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?TotalAverageTiming

My great invention of adapting Fischer timing to analog clock was already invented. But I think that easiest way to adapt good time keeping system for analog clock is to allocate time e.g. 50 mins for first 2×100 moves + 30 minutes time bonus for the rest of the game. Counting stones is easiest if players write game record, as EGF rules require players to record their games.

HermanHiddema wrote:

zinger wrote:Well it had to happen eventually, even in our friendly new digs here at 19x19. I have put the first user on my ignore list.

I think ignore lists are a dangerous thing. If a user shows unacceptable behavior they should be dealt with by the community.

@Liisa: Your behavior towards TMark is completely unacceptable. If you are unable to have discussions in a civil manner, please remove yourself from the forum until such time as you are again able to be civil.

In response to this message, I have received a private message from Liisa that makes several personal attacks on both TMark and myself. Given the tone of its content, I feel that there is no point for me to debate it any further with Liisa, because that would be fruitless.

I would like to ask a neutral third party, an administrator or moderator, to review the contents of this thread and of the private message, and to take appropriate action. I have reported the PM in question.

Hi all.
The EGF Rating Commission has approved the inclusion of tournaments played with the Fischer timekeeping system.

These are the rules for classify such tournaments:
TA = basic time + bonus calculated for 120 moves
* Class A: minimum BT 45 minutes, minimum TA 75 minutes (e.g.: 45 minutes + 15'' per move)
* Class B: minimum BT 30 minutes, minimum TA 50 minutes (e.g.: 30 minutes + 10'' per move)
* Class C: minimum BT 20 minutes, minimum TA 30 minutes (e.g.: 20 minutes + 5'' per move)


Bye,
Aldo Podavini

TMark wrote:I'm going to have to find out if any tournament I go to will expect me to count out 100 stones at the start of each game as part of Fischer timing. Knowing the space in which tournaments are usually played, the thought of every participant counting out 100 stones is going to be a recipe for disaster. There is usually a clock, various cups and containers, recording materials and now a scattering of 100 stones on both sides of the board? Now I know that someone will come along, a second Mr Ing perhaps, with some ingenious device for counting and retaining 100 miscellaneous-sized go stones which every player will be required to own before they can take part in one of these tournaments, but count me out.

Best wishes.

Unless you have a digital clock which supports Fischer Time then you will not be using Fischer Time. There would be no reason to count out 100 stones.

Javaness wrote:
Unless you have a digital clock which supports Fischer Time then you will not be using Fischer Time. There would be no reason to count out 100 stones.

If only people were using Chronos... I love those clocks.

I have stayed away from this thread for a while, because it seemed that my personal views, always expressed as such, caused some people to have conniptions. Some cannot, it seems, realise that the personal preference of the players should intrude into the world of amateur tournament play.

I have just spent a pleasant weekend playing in the Brussels tournament, along with 75 others. I generally treat my weekends in Brussels as an opportunity to buy tobacco and chocolate and to have some good food and wine with some friends. My play is normally handicapped by the amount of wine, and in one case grappa, consumed the night before. However, my main point for consideration of simple systems of time-keeping at tournaments is that the organisers only had about 10 electronic clocks available, which meant that 28 boards were using wind-up analogue clocks. I have no objection to organisers being given the option and that they would have to be warned that only digital clocks can cope, but I worry, mildly, that people who get so het up about a tournament system, insisting that their's is the best objective system available, would start trying to make it the only one available before the infrastructure will bear it. I would also need advance warning to head for the bunkers.

Best wishes.