Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Don, I like you very much, but when you say that byo-yomi is unfriendly to humans, I have to say that you clearly haven't played enough go. Byo-yomi is incredibly friendly to humans. If you don't like it, try canadian timing, which is also very friendly to humans. Please, for the love of god, do not now make a chess analogy. Simply play a few hundred games of go with canadian, byo-yomi and fixed time to compare. s. Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
2007/6/19, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Don, I like you very much, but when you say that byo-yomi is unfriendly to humans, I have to say that you clearly haven't played enough go. Byo-yomi is incredibly friendly to humans. If you don't like it, try canadian timing, which is also very friendly to humans. Please, for the love of god, do not now make a chess analogy. Simply play a few hundred games of go with canadian, byo-yomi and fixed time to compare. Sorry, but as far as I understood, Don said byo-yomi is better for computers *compared to Fischer clock*. And I think he's right. Don explicitly stated that byo-yomi is better for humans compared to fixed time. -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
I don't agree with you. In Go, before starting a sequence on the board you have to think a lot about the different possible sequences and the outcomes. You need to think about what you get finally and is there anything better. But when the sequence is started, you have the different variations in mind, and you check if all go ok. Some can also be forced, so you don't have to think so much for theses. So, for me, it's clear that some moves need lot of reflexion and other need can be responded almost imediately. Byo-yomi alocate a constant time for each moves. So you have to take some time, when responding to a forced move, to think a little about another move that you may do in the future. But this is difficult to do, and most peaoples don't use fully each period. Tom On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 07:14:49AM -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > Don, I like you very much, but when you say that byo-yomi > is unfriendly to humans, I have to say that you clearly haven't > played enough go. Byo-yomi is incredibly friendly to humans. > > If you don't like it, try canadian timing, which is also very > friendly to humans. > > Please, for the love of god, do not now make a chess analogy. > Simply play a few hundred games of go with canadian, byo-yomi > and fixed time to compare. > > s. > > > > > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > http://travel.yahoo.com/ > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Thomas Lavergne "Le vrai rêveur est celui qui rêve de l'impossible." (Elsa Triolet) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://reveurs.org ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 07:14 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > Don, I like you very much, but when you say that byo-yomi > is unfriendly to humans, I have to say that you clearly haven't > played enough go. Byo-yomi is incredibly friendly to humans. You are not thinking clearly here because I am comparing 3 different styles of time control and I ranked byo-yomi as friendlier than sudden death by far. Compared to sudden death, byo-yomi is very friendly - however, it still puts you in sudden death like situations - racing the clock. It's clearly more unfriendly than Fischer time because you have little control over your own time-allocation - you are always losing (or maintaining) time, never accumulating. You perception of how friendly any time-control is has much to do with the parameters. Sudden death at 8 hours per side is far friendlier than byo-yomi with really short time limits. For example: Main time : 5 minutes. Byo-Yomi time : 5 seconds Byo-Yomi Periods : 3 isn't particularly friendly. Any time-control style can be manipulated to be comfortable or uncomfortable for humans. If you try to compare these systems of time control you must have settings that approximately equal each other in terms of how long an expected match will last. I would also point out that by adjusting parameters byo-yomi OR Fischer becomes (or approaches) sudden death. Just set time and period to zero for byo-yomi. So the practical difference is how much control you have over your own time-allocation and this is clearly greatest with Fischer time. Also, byo-yomi has the bizarre and illogical characteristic that the player who used the least amount of time could be the one to LOSE on time. That's a side-effect of the characteristic that byo-yomi gives you less control over your time allocation. If you believe that makes it friendlier than Fischer time, then I believe you are not thinking very clearly about this. You are probably just making a judgment based on what you are personally most familiar with, not what is objectively best. Playing actual games with byo-yomi time is totally useless for judging how friendly it is - your perception will be colored if those matches are played with liberal byo-yomi time and liberal number of periods. It will be comfortable and you will be happy. So you can only talk about the characteristics of each type of time period and you have to reason it out. With byo-yomi you can get into time-crisis situation that never go away. Here is a table: 1. sudden death - very unfriendly to humans. 2. byo-yomi - you can get into time-crises situations that you can never recover from - but if the byo-yomi time is liberal, at least you can never be forced to move instantly. byo-yomi is easy to manage for computers. A computer can simply always spend almost all of the byo-yomi time no matter how obvious the move which also will have the benefit of annoying the human opponent. 3. Fischer - Best. If you are really short on time, you can gain time on your clock by playing easy moves more quickly. Sudden death is best for computers when playing humans but it's not the easiest to manage for computers. It's just that humans aren't good at it. So the ordering above is in worst to best order for humans but just the opposite for computers. Fischer is also hardest to manage for computers. None of these are difficult to implement for computers, but computers are very poor judges of how to allocate time wisely - they pretty much have simplistic algorithms for time management that doesn't consider (or does a poor job at) how difficult or critical the decision happens to be. Fischer is wonderful for letting humans exploit this skill. byo-yomi tries to make you play at a steady rate - not friendly. So if I wanted to play a very important computer/human match (and I'm a computer) and I couldn't play sudden death, I would clearly prefer byo-yomi over Fischer, given the same approximate expected match length. - Don > If you don't like it, try canadian timing, which is also very > friendly to humans. > > Please, for the love of god, do not now make a chess analogy. > Simply play a few hundred games of go with canadian, byo-yomi > and fixed time to compare. > > s. > > > > > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > http://travel.yahoo.com/ > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Better go players simply make any move which is "good enough" when the flag is about to drop. When they play in that manner, their clock never runs out. This is quite frustrating for someone who hopes to catch others in time trouble. ( speaking from personal experience - I just lost a game this past weekend to a methodical player who used 29 seconds of every byo-yomi period while I still had a good bit of time on my clock. Give me sudden death :D ) Generally, by the time one is playing byo-yomi, the game is settled, and the clock time has been used to accumulate sufficient advantage that one need not sweat each and every end-game move. Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:11:15 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19! On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 07:14 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > Don, I like you very much, but when you say that byo-yomi > is unfriendly to humans, I have to say that you clearly haven't > played enough go. Byo-yomi is incredibly friendly to humans. You are not thinking clearly here because I am comparing 3 different styles of time control and I ranked byo-yomi as friendlier than sudden death by far. Compared to sudden death, byo-yomi is very friendly - however, it still puts you in sudden death like situations - racing the clock. It's clearly more unfriendly than Fischer time because you have little control over your own time-allocation - you are always losing (or maintaining) time, never accumulating. You perception of how friendly any time-control is has much to do with the parameters. Sudden death at 8 hours per side is far friendlier than byo-yomi with really short time limits. For example: Main time : 5 minutes. Byo-Yomi time : 5 seconds Byo-Yomi Periods : 3 isn't particularly friendly. Any time-control style can be manipulated to be comfortable or uncomfortable for humans. If you try to compare these systems of time control you must have settings that approximately equal each other in terms of how long an expected match will last. I would also point out that by adjusting parameters byo-yomi OR Fischer becomes (or approaches) sudden death. Just set time and period to zero for byo-yomi. So the practical difference is how much control you have over your own time-allocation and this is clearly greatest with Fischer time. Also, byo-yomi has the bizarre and illogical characteristic that the player who used the least amount of time could be the one to LOSE on time. That's a side-effect of the characteristic that byo-yomi gives you less control over your time allocation. If you believe that makes it friendlier than Fischer time, then I believe you are not thinking very clearly about this. You are probably just making a judgment based on what you are personally most familiar with, not what is objectively best. Playing actual games with byo-yomi time is totally useless for judging how friendly it is - your perception will be colored if those matches are played with liberal byo-yomi time and liberal number of periods. It will be comfortable and you will be happy. So you can only talk about the characteristics of each type of time period and you have to reason it out. With byo-yomi you can get into time-crisis situation that never go away. Here is a table: 1. sudden death - very unfriendly to humans. 2. byo-yomi - you can get into time-crises situations that you can never recover from - but if the byo-yomi time is liberal, at least you can never be forced to move instantly. byo-yomi is easy to manage for computers. A computer can simply always spend almost all of the byo-yomi time no matter how obvious the move which also will have the benefit of annoying the human opponent. 3. Fischer - Best. If you are really short on time, you can gain time on your clock by playing easy moves more quickly. Sudden death is best for computers when playing humans but it's not the easiest to manage for computers. It's just that humans aren't good at it. So the ordering above is in worst to best order for humans but just the opposite for computers. Fischer is also hardest to manage for computers. None of these are difficult to implement for computers, but computers are very poor judges of how to allocate time wisely - they pretty much have simplistic algorithms for time management that doesn't consider (or does a poor job at) how difficult or critical the decision happens to be. Fischer is wonderful for letting humans exploit this skill. byo-yomi tries to make you play at a steady rate - not friendly. So if I wanted to play a very important computer/human match (and I'm a computer) and I couldn't play sudden de
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
2007/6/20, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 3. Fischer - Best. If you are really short on time, you can gain time on your clock by playing easy moves more quickly. I also note that this would allow trading ko threats with time. In typical Go positions there are many forcing moves available. -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
how about canadian time? X moves in Y minutes, where X and Y reset every time you play X moves. you can choose where to spend your time, and if things get tight, you only have to survive and not do anything stupid for X-(current # of moves) and then you get all of your time back. you can use up ko threats, or just make suboptimal sente moves, or whatever, until you get a new unused batch of moves and time. s. Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 11:27 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > how about canadian time? > > X moves in Y minutes, where X and Y reset every time > you play X moves. you can choose where to spend your > time, and if things get tight, you only have to survive and > not do anything stupid for X-(current # of moves) and then > you get all of your time back. you can use up ko threats, > or just make suboptimal sente moves, or whatever, until > you get a new unused batch of moves and time. That still has the undesirable characteristic that you can use much less time than your opponent but still lose on time. You might as well set a time-control of 1 minute per move and you lose if any moves go over 1 minute. I also don't like having to account for move numbers. It's ok if the computer is tracking this such as online sites, but it's a pain remembering and keeping up with move numbers in games played on physical equipment. - Don > s. > > > > > > > Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. > http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:45:28PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > I also don't like having to account for move numbers. It's ok if the > computer is tracking this such as online sites, but it's a pain > remembering and keeping up with move numbers in games played on physical > equipment. Have you ever tried it as go? Counting 20 stones, laying them out in front of you and closing the bowl with its lid is done in about the same time in which the opponent is resetting the clock. (I agree that Fischer time is superior for go, but it may take a long while until it gains acceptance.) Arend ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 11:27 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: >I also don't like having to account for move numbers. It's ok if the >computer is tracking this such as online sites, but it's a pain >remembering and keeping up with move numbers in games played on physical >equipment. I know that Ing clocks automatically deal with byo yomi. They even have little synthesizers which announce "30 seconds", "10 seconds", and so forth. There are probably clocks which deal with Canadian time in a similar fashion. I don't think anyone would want to manually deal with the intricacies nowadays. My understanding is that in pro games, assistants with stopwatches announce the seconds, but for the rest of us, it's done by some sort of automatic clock or computer, good help being hard to find ;) Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
> That still has the undesirable characteristic that you can use much less > time than your opponent but still lose on time. not to be too obtuse, but why is this an undesirable characteristic? s. Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:49 -0500, Arend Bayer wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:45:28PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > > I also don't like having to account for move numbers. It's ok if the > > computer is tracking this such as online sites, but it's a pain > > remembering and keeping up with move numbers in games played on physical > > equipment. > > Have you ever tried it as go? Counting 20 stones, laying them out in > front of you and closing the bowl with its lid is done in about the same > time in which the opponent is resetting the clock. I haven't tried it in GO, but I know it's a pain no matter how easy it is. In chess you are required to write the down the moves - but it's still a pain even though you have instance access to the move number - the problem is that when you are super-focused on the game, your not paying any attention to what move number you are on. So it's not a difficult thing by any means, it's just a distraction that you usually don't want to do deal with. > (I agree that Fischer time is superior for go, but it may take a long > while until it gains acceptance.) The whole idea of any non-sudden death time is to prevent silly loses due to being crunched for time at the last second. These interesting time-control variants seem to me to be an attempt to "simulate" not having a clock at all. In an ideal world, you take as much time as you need but this is totally unrealistic in the real world and in tournaments and matches where you need some kind of time guarantees. But the Fischer clock, in my opinion, is the most dignified way to handle this from the human point of view. - Don > Arend > > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
(I agree that Fischer time is superior for go, but it may take a long while until it gains acceptance.) Arend The thing with Go is that typically moves that require long thinking times are among the first hundred, i.e. fuseki and chuban. The last 150 moves of a typical go games, the yose, require much less thinking time for a human (but can't be done instantaneously, which is a problem with sudden death : you can't play the whole yose in less than three or four minutes, on a real goban). Fischer timing would lead to huge amount of time being hoarded for the endgame, but leave less time in the thinking intensive, more interesting beginning. Pros on 8-hours game sometime spend a whole hour on a single move, and reach byoyomi by move 100. There is also for amateur tournaments the question of practicality : canadian or byoyomi overtime allow for relatively stable game length, whereas fischer time allowing time buildup might lead to much longer games, making it hard to have many rounds played in a day. Antonin ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Sorry, but I disagree with almost anything you say in this post: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:32:27PM +0200, Antonin Lucas wrote: > > (I agree that Fischer time is superior for go, but it may take a > long > while until it gains acceptance.) >The thing with Go is that typically moves that require long thinking >times are among the first hundred, i.e. fuseki and chuban. The last 150 >moves of a typical go games, the yose, require much less thinking time >for a human Fischer time can easily be adapted to this: Set the time per move to the speed you want to have the endgame played in. During fuseki/middle game, players would think longer, living off their main time. >There is also for amateur tournaments the question of practicality : >canadian or byoyomi overtime allow for relatively stable game length, >whereas fischer time allowing time buildup might lead to much longer >games, making it hard to have many rounds played in a day. Not true, it is quite the opposite. A game of 300 moves in Fischer time takes a very predictable amount of time, where as length of the same game in Canadian time setting depends very much on when the two players entered in byo-yomi. Your post is a pretty good example of why I think Fischer time will take a looong time to get accepted, as many go players have irrational averse reactions to Fischer time before they have actually played it. Arend ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
I don't think so - with a basic time x and a per-more time y you can freely adjust the fischer time setting to both short games and games where there's more time in the beginning. Regards, Benjamin Antonin Lucas schrieb: (I agree that Fischer time is superior for go, but it may take a long while until it gains acceptance.) Arend The thing with Go is that typically moves that require long thinking times are among the first hundred, i.e. fuseki and chuban. The last 150 moves of a typical go games, the yose, require much less thinking time for a human (but can't be done instantaneously, which is a problem with sudden death : you can't play the whole yose in less than three or four minutes, on a real goban). Fischer timing would lead to huge amount of time being hoarded for the endgame, but leave less time in the thinking intensive, more interesting beginning. Pros on 8-hours game sometime spend a whole hour on a single move, and reach byoyomi by move 100. There is also for amateur tournaments the question of practicality : canadian or byoyomi overtime allow for relatively stable game length, whereas fischer time allowing time buildup might lead to much longer games, making it hard to have many rounds played in a day. Antonin ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
on time systems - as a human player, if my objective is to win by playing better moves, my order of preference is: Canadian overtime, Byo yomi, Sudden death. And if my objective is to win by any legal method, it is: Sudden death, Canadian overtime, Byo yomi. However, we all have our own preferences, so my opinion as a player is of no relevance. My opinion as a referee may be more relevant. If I am refereeing a computer event, I strongly prefer Sudden death. This allows me to fit more rounds into the schedule, as I know when every game will be over. And the programs don't mind, the better ones are perfectly well able to adapt their play to how much time they have left. (For fast events over the internet, I might prefer an extra second a move Fischer-style, to deal with lag.) If I am refereeing a human event, I dislike sudden death. Some people are more willing than others to do things which even I regard as dubious so as to win on time. I may be asked to make a judgement call on whether they have stepped over the (undefined) line. I don't like having to make judgement calls. I prefer Canadian overtime to Byo yomi. The players manage Canadian overtime for themselves. Byo yomi requires, either a human to count down each game, or an Ing clock, both of which I would rather avoid. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 12:15 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > That still has the undesirable characteristic that you can use much less > > time than your opponent but still lose on time. > > not to be too obtuse, but why is this an undesirable characteristic? No, I understand your question. It is a matter of what you consider important. You could argue that as long as the rules are the same for both players it's fair so it doesn't matter in that sense. I consider it "undesirable" because it takes a little dignity away from the players. It could be perceived as a bit unfair that you can can lose on time despite using much less time.But also, you are being forced to play a fairly steady rate instead of being given control over your own time-allocation. So there is less dignity in that. It also seems more elegant to me to reward the player who has taken the least amount of time. Remember, I'm a firm believer in the time/strength curve so to me if you spend less time playing the first N moves and have an equal position, then in my view you have "out-performed" your opponent. I consider it a travesty that you should get penalized for this. Instead, your reward should be a payment of some kind and extra time is the most logical payment! If you don't view it this way, then you are adding elements to the game which might make it more interesting in some ways, but those elements are not pure go, it's extra sub-games that you have to skillfully navigate. Wouldn't it be silly if you added a rule that said if you can't lift a 200 pound weight, you lose a turn? It would give the physically stronger player the advantage. There is nothing wrong with that, after all the physically stronger players have an advantage in sports and the more skilled players have an advantage in GO, but do you really want to add more non-go-specific elements to the game? It's appropriate that the more skillful go player has an advantage but not that the player with the strongest physical muscles does. I realize I'm really straining the gnat on this. byo-yomi time control isn't some kind of horrible travesty and it doesn't add very much extra non-go skill to the game, but it does a little. It's a step in the wrong direction even if just a little. This reminds me of what Universities and other government agencies have to live with with respect to funding. You are given a certain amount of money to spend in a certain amount of time, but if you don't use it, you lose it. You cannot save it up to be spent on something more intelligent later. When I worked at the lab we ran into that situation and as a result we all got laptops! We didn't really have a desperate need for laptops, but we had to go on a silly spending spree otherwise we would lose the money! Byo-yomi is exactly like that. If the byo-yomi time is 60 seconds, you must use the full 59 seconds or lose it. It's a shame that if you don't really need it, you lose it. - Don > s. > > > > > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:32 +0200, Antonin Lucas wrote: > The thing with Go is that typically moves that require long thinking > times are among the first hundred, i.e. fuseki and chuban. The last > 150 moves of a typical go games, the yose, require much less thinking > time for a human (but can't be done instantaneously, which is a > problem with sudden death : you can't play the whole yose in less than > three or four minutes, on a real goban). > > Fischer timing would lead to huge amount of time being hoarded for the > endgame, but leave less time in the thinking intensive, more > interesting beginning. Pros on 8-hours game sometime spend a whole > hour on a single move, and reach byoyomi by move 100. > > There is also for amateur tournaments the question of practicality : > canadian or byoyomi overtime allow for relatively stable game length, > whereas fischer time allowing time buildup might lead to much longer > games, making it hard to have many rounds played in a day. My formula is that the increment for Fischer should be pretty small for GO, longer for Chess where you will encounter difficulties at every stage of the game until 1 player resigns. This would solve the problems you mention. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
My formula is that the increment for Fischer should be pretty small for GO, longer for Chess where you will encounter difficulties at every stage of the game until 1 player resigns. This would solve the problems you mention. - Don The final problem with go is that the endgame is sometimes boring, and a player that likes to drag it on is very annoying. A player might stack up twenty minutes and use them up on the last very few moves, which is not very nice. A steady pace during the small yose is a good thing for human player. (It is a known tactic ,in the mid kyu levels, to beat upstart young kids that dare to be as strong as you, but still have a short attention span. Annoy them enough by playing "too slowly" and anger or distract them.) Antonin ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 22:11 +0200, Antonin Lucas wrote: > > > > My formula is that the increment for Fischer should be pretty > small for > GO, longer for Chess where you will encounter difficulties at > every > stage of the game until 1 player resigns. This would solve > the > problems you mention. > > > - Don > > The final problem with go is that the endgame is sometimes boring, and > a player that likes to drag it on is very annoying. A player might > stack up twenty minutes and use them up on the last very few moves, > which is not very nice. A steady pace during the small yose is a good > thing for human player. (It is a known tactic ,in the mid kyu levels, > to beat upstart young kids that dare to be as strong as you, but still > have a short attention span. Annoy them enough by playing "too slowly" > and anger or distract them.) This problem isn't limited to the Fischer clock. With byo-yomi you can take the full time and always make your move at the last possible second and not even have to take a penalty for it. At least with Fischer, it is real time you lose. I have had players in losing positions just walk away from the board to run out their clocks but refusing to resign.Sometimes they appear if they see you walk away from the board to make a quick move - hoping you will forget the game and lose on time yourself. They do this with any time-control. - Don > Antonin > > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
i think that maybe you misunderstand how byo yomi is used in practice. you have a giant pile of time that should be enough to account for basically all of the hardest parts of the game. then you have several (more than 1 !) byo-yomi periods, which are like grace periods on top of what would otherwise be sudden death. however, you don't enter byo-yomi until you have used all of your main time. some people don't ever enter byo-yomi. you certainly can't lose on time unless you're in byo-yomi. once you're in byo-yomi, each byo-yomi period is *plenty* of time to make and answer the reasonably unchallenging final moves of the game. if, however, a challenging move does come up, you can "go over" your grace period. that's pretty friendly from a sudden-death point of view. you're just only allowed to "go over" some maximum number of times (often 5 or 10). the reality is that if your opponent is playing moves that you can't answer using byo-yomi, then he's perhaps trying to beat you with the clock, but he's definitely better at the game than you are, and maybe you deserve to lose anyway. it's something that he might do if you're in byo-yomi and he isn't. he wouldn't play moves that he didn't know how to answer if he had fewer byo-yomi periods than you did, because he'd just be beating himself with the clock. all of this adds up to: i think that what you're worried about (someone losing on time while having spent less time playing) is unusual, or deserved. here's my thinking. the only way this could happen would be if (correct me if there's a flaw here): both players were into byo-yomi time. player A starts to play moves very, very quickly. player B plays moves more slowly (and presumably more deliberately). at some point, player B plays one or more moves that player A has to think really hard about. player A goes "overtime" 4 separate times during this stage of the game and is left with a single byo-yomi period left. at this point he can take up to 30 seconds (say) for every single move that he takes if he wants to. player B plays a very challenging move that player A can't answer in a single byo-yomi period and then player A loses on time. now, from my way of thinking, there's a sense in which player A deserves this -- either he should have spent more of his time thinking during the endgame instead of just making quick moves, or player B is better at generating and figuring out complicated fights (in which case, well, no use crying over losing by time, as that's almost the definition of what it means to be good at go). s. Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
steve uurtamo wrote: i think that maybe you misunderstand how byo yomi is used in practice. you have a giant pile of time that should be enough to account for basically all of the hardest parts of the game. then you have several (more than 1 !) byo-yomi periods, which are like grace periods on top of what would otherwise be sudden death. however, you don't enter byo-yomi until you have used all of your main time. some people don't ever enter byo-yomi. you certainly can't lose on time unless you're in byo-yomi. once you're in byo-yomi, each byo-yomi period is *plenty* of time to make and answer the reasonably unchallenging final moves of the game. if, however, a challenging move does come up, you can "go over" your grace period. that's pretty friendly from a sudden-death point of view. you're just only allowed to "go over" some maximum number of times (often 5 or 10). the reality is that if your opponent is playing moves that you can't answer using byo-yomi, then he's perhaps trying to beat you with the clock, but he's definitely better at the game than you are, and maybe you deserve to lose anyway. it's something that he might do if you're in byo-yomi and he isn't. he wouldn't play moves that he didn't know how to answer if he had fewer byo-yomi periods than you did, because he'd just be beating himself with the clock. all of this adds up to: i think that what you're worried about (someone losing on time while having spent less time playing) is unusual, or deserved. here's my thinking. the only way this could happen would be if (correct me if there's a flaw here): both players were into byo-yomi time. player A starts to play moves very, very quickly. player B plays moves more slowly (and presumably more deliberately). at some point, player B plays one or more moves that player A has to think really hard about. player A goes "overtime" 4 separate times during this stage of the game and is left with a single byo-yomi period left. at this point he can take up to 30 seconds (say) for every single move that he takes if he wants to. player B plays a very challenging move that player A can't answer in a single byo-yomi period and then player A loses on time. now, from my way of thinking, there's a sense in which player A deserves this -- either he should have spent more of his time thinking during the endgame instead of just making quick moves, or player B is better at generating and figuring out complicated fights (in which case, well, no use crying over losing by time, as that's almost the definition of what it means to be good at go). I'm jumping in here, but how about this? Byo-yomi time is complicated. Fischer time is simple. By other factors, I think there are legitimate pros and cons to both systems, but personally would like Fischer time better. Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a sub-game/task either way. -Matt ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
> Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > sub-game/task either way. true, and a good point. time management other than attempting to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is complicated. s. Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:18 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > > sub-game/task either way. > > true, and a good point. time management other than attempting > to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of > remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is > complicated. But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know the situation. - Don > s. > > > > > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
actually, it's least complicated with sudden death. s. - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:41:03 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19! On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:18 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > > sub-game/task either way. > > true, and a good point. time management other than attempting > to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of > remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is > complicated. But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know the situation. - Don > s. > > > > > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
sorry, i should have said that i think that it's least complicated with sudden death. unless you mean to treat it internally as if it's sudden death, but to use fisher time to make up for lag/delay. s. - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:41:03 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19! On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:18 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > > sub-game/task either way. > > true, and a good point. time management other than attempting > to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of > remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is > complicated. But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know the situation. - Don > s. > > > > > > > > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
[Fischer clock] -- play a move to get times. [Byo-yomi] -- use times to play a move. For human's feeling, time is passing, but not increasing. So byo-yomi is popular now and in the future. igo - Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:18 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > > Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > > > sub-game/task either way. > > > > true, and a good point. time management other than attempting > > to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of > > remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is > > complicated. > > But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is > steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned > differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know > the situation. > > - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Not sure this was mentioned before, but there's an interesting study work presented at http://senseis.xmp.net/?TimingSystemsRedux -- nando On 6/20/07, igo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Fischer clock] -- play a move to get times. [Byo-yomi] -- use times to play a move. For human's feeling, time is passing, but not increasing. So byo-yomi is popular now and in the future. igo - Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 16:18 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > > > Managing your own time whether in chunks or as a whole _is_ a > > > sub-game/task either way. > > > > true, and a good point. time management other than attempting > > to equally divide remaining time among the expected number of > > remaining moves (which itself isn't so easy to estimate) is > > complicated. > > But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is > steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned > differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know > the situation. > > - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to GNU and to MoGoBot19!
Hi, On 6/20/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But it's least complicated with Fischer clock because everything is steady state, no mode shifts where suddenly things are reckoned differently. A simple glance at the clock is all you need to know the situation. I'm not sure I understand how Fischer time works in practice: can you use it without a digital clock? The advantage of the Canadian system is that it is easy to use with regular Chess clocks. best regards, Vlad ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
