On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:43:23PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> > > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
> > > free?
> >
> > That introduces a bias towards p
On 3/27/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
> toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broad
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
> toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by
> hand to John Tromp so he can com
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is
> very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have
> fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most
> people anyway. And you do get an
Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by
hand to John Tromp so he can comment on the game; I couldn't do this
twice as fast. :) I also
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
> > free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the
> > rounds would still be with most of the playe
I vote for 5 minutes per side in the name of faster ratings, faster
testing and faster games for casual observers to observe. Plus,
computers are getting faster every day and 9x9 Go algorithms are
getting better every day so it seems reasonable to speed-up the time
controls from what it was when
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the
rounds would still be with most of the players.
That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:15:49PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> Actually, I only slightly prefer 5 minutes - it seems like it would
> be a benefit all things considered. But as I said, I'm willing to
> concede - I will do what the group as a whole prefers. So
> far nobody has spoken out in favor
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> > But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
> > is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
> I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example.
>
> > At any rate, I will probably go with
> > 5 minutes unless I get a lot of
10 matches
Mail list logo
