Life In 19x19

I have now played in several tournament with Fisher timing. If I get a shortage of time, it usually happens in the middle game. Then in yose I usually accumulate more time. I came up with an idea to have accelerated Fisher timing. The increment decreases when the game progresses. Here is an example, but other schemes are also possible.

• 45 minutes of basic time
  20 seconds increment at start
  after each 10 moves the increment is one second smaller
  after 170 moves the increment is 3 seconds and does not decrease

This way the players could use their time efficiently, but it would be easy for the organisers to predict when the games are finished, and therefore to schedule the tournament. What do you think?

I like the idea. (For reference, for your numbers, given a game of about 130 moves each, which is about average, both players get an additional 30 minutes on top of their 45 minutes basic time)

Personally, I also think there is value in adding a small Bronstein factor, i.e. a delay before the clock starts running which does not accumulate. If you have such a delay of e.g. 3 seconds, it means there is no value in trying to slam down your stone as quick as possible after your opponent's move, which can be distracting and could be perceived as rude.

Matti wrote:I have now played in several tournament with Fisher timing. If I get a shortage of time, it usually happens in the middle game. Then in yose I usually accumulate more time. I came up with an idea to have accelerated Fisher timing. The increment decreases when the game progresses. Here is an example, but other schemes are also possible.

• 45 minutes of basic time
  20 seconds increment at start
  after each 10 moves the increment is one second smaller
  after 170 moves the increment is 3 seconds and does not decrease

This way the players could use their time efficiently, but it would be easy for the organisers to predict when the games are finished, and therefore to schedule the tournament. What do you think?

Try playing a game with 3 seconds per move and see what happens. I think that you will very quickly adjust that part of your idea.

Why do you think it is a problem that you use less than the full time that you are given? Keep in mind that is the 'problem' you are trying to fix.

As far as scheduling goes I assume that you do not use either Canadian or byo-yomi since both are worse than Fischer in their effect on the predictability of the game time. I say that because due to the spilling of unused time they normally require longer periods than Fischer in order to provide a positive game experience for players.

ez4u wrote: Try playing a game with 3 seconds per move and see what happens. I think that you will very quickly adjust that part of your idea.

That's how it works on GoQuest, 13x13 is 5 mins main time plus 3 secs Fischer[sic]. I have got down to little time and played fast to build up my time again, though of course that's easier online than in real life with a clock to press. But even 3 seconds (increment not byo-yomi, you can still have some accumulated time left) in real life is better than sudden death for dealing with those jokers who keep on playing when 100 points behind to win on time (and it's probably pretty easy yose by move 340 unless there was some really long ko). For the record I have played 50 stones in 5 minutes Canadian in real life tournament games which is an average of 6 seconds a move but actually played quite a lot faster than I needed to.

I'm jealous of stronger players' ability and apparent confidence to play endgame so quickly. My experience is that it is not just oh, hane connect here, monkey jump there, but more often: "wait, is this even sente? Does this kill?" At 3 seconds per move I'd just be filling in random intersections near the edge of the board. The outcome of the game would have little correlation with anything that happened in the first 100 moves. (I understand Fischer time and believe it's theoretically good. However, I have no experience playing it in real-time games. So while I am aware that a 3 second increment is not the same as a 3-second byoyomi because the chance to accumulate, and that should make for a difference in feel, it still sounds scary.)

The saving grace in Matti's suggestion is the 45 minutes basic time. Since I can play 45 minutes absolute I would probably play as if the game were like that and just save the overtime in case of emergencies like multiple kos or games with a lot of dame. (BTW, Matti in your suggestion, does the 20-second increment start after the 45 minutes is elasped or right after the 1st move? Also, I'm curious what the time limits were in the tournaments were you felt pressure in the middle game, just for comparison.)

Don't think I can play the endgame well at six seconds a move. I might play like a 10 kyu rather than 4 dan. But that is usually enough to win a game at move 300 that I'm winning by 100 points against a 2 dan. On the other hand with sudden death I have zero chance to win.

For some other examples my so far only rated tournament win against a 6d was at the Brussels tournament which has quite generous overtime, 15 stones in 5 minutes iirc. I went from about 30 points ahead to 15 in endgame. Against a 7d in the online PGETC with 25 stones in 10 minutes from maybe a generous 20 to a very fortuitous 0.5. Even against Dinerstein 3p/7d I probably lost about five points in the endgame and that was with near infinite time.

People seem to think that a 3 second increment is 3 seconds per move. It is not: only if you have used up all your previous time. If you reach the 3 sec/move point with 20 minutes left then you will hardly notice: you use 10 seconds per move and get 3 second added on, for a net of 7 seconds. All it means is your time is decreasing more slowly thank you are actually playing.

HermanHiddema wrote: Personally, I also think there is value in adding a small Bronstein factor, i.e. a delay before the clock starts running which does not accumulate.

This kind of delay is good, IMHO. Although there may be rules that allow on to stop the clock when removing captured stones, doing so is somewhat disruptive so having time to at least manually perform that operation for one or two stones is beneficial.

Interestingly, in the USCF rules it says this:

Using digital clocks with delay capability (Allegro Clocks)

Rule 5F specifies that in tournaments with sudden death time-controls, Allegro clocks shall be set with a 5 second delay for regular and a 3 second delay for quick rated events. Other delays are non-standard and require notice in all advance publicity and must be posted and announced at the tournament. Not using the delay on allegro clocks is also non-standard and also requires notice in all advance publicity and must be posted and announced at the tournament.

Matti, for comparison can you tell us what time control was used in the tournaments you played?

Matti wrote:I have now played in several tournament with Fisher timing. If I get a shortage of time, it usually happens in the middle game. Then in yose I usually accumulate more time. I came up with an idea to have accelerated Fisher timing. The increment decreases when the game progresses. Here is an example, but other schemes are also possible.

• 45 minutes of basic time
  20 seconds increment at start
  after each 10 moves the increment is one second smaller
  after 170 moves the increment is 3 seconds and does not decrease

This way the players could use their time efficiently, but it would be easy for the organisers to predict when the games are finished, and therefore to schedule the tournament. What do you think?

I realized the text above might be slightly ambiguous. I meant that after a player has åplayed 10 moves and the opponent also 10 moves, the increment is reduced.

yoyoma wrote:Matti, for comparison can you tell us what time control was used in the tournaments you played?

Between 45 minutes with 20 seconds increment and 20 minutes with 10 seconds increment.

A player gets down to 3 second increment after 340 moves have been played. Unless there has been long or numerous ko fights there would be only dame left. If 3 you still consider 3 seconds too short,one might adjust the scheme and finish the game with 5 seconds increment.

ez4u wrote:Why do you think it is a problem that you use less than the full time that you are given? Keep in mind that is the 'problem' you are trying to fix.

I think this isn't really the problem he is trying to fix. Rather, as with most timing systems, you are trying to make sure that people have as much time available for their games as possible while also allowing tournament schedules to stay within certain bounds (and while protecting them from timeouts).

To keep your schedule, you sort of have to plan your tournament around the worst case of your timing system. If the way people use their time *on average* is far away from the worst case, your solution is not optimal.

So Matti is noticing a gap between the way people *normally* use their time (i.e. using very little of it in the late endgame) and the worst case (using all your time even in the late endgame) and is trying to make more of that time available to more players.

HermanHiddema wrote:

ez4u wrote:Why do you think it is a problem that you use less than the full time that you are given? Keep in mind that is the 'problem' you are trying to fix.

I think this isn't really the problem he is trying to fix. Rather, as with most timing systems, you are trying to make sure that people have as much time available for their games as possible while also allowing tournament schedules to stay within certain bounds (and while protecting them from timeouts).

To keep your schedule, you sort of have to plan your tournament around the worst case of your timing system. If the way people use their time *on average* is far away from the worst case, your solution is not optimal.

So Matti is noticing a gap between the way people *normally* use their time (i.e. using very little of it in the late endgame) and the worst case (using all your time even in the late endgame) and is trying to make more of that time available to more players.

Is fischer time even used in tournaments? Are their clocks which can do that?

DrStraw wrote:Is fischer time even used in tournaments? Are their clocks which can do that?

Often enough that the European Go Federation added rules to their rating system to determine what weight should be given to games played with Fischer time (see tournament classes at: http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EG ... ubmissions).

In the Netherlands, I see a lot of DGT2000+ and DGT2010 clocks being used, which definitely support Fischer time. My own Excalibur clock at home also supports it.