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
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
frie
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
m
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 compa
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
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.
-
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
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
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 e
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 phys
> 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.
Go
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
(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, re
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
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
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 p
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
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
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
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 p
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 other
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
> 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.
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 mo
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 w
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: Tuesda
[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:
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 i
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 understa
29 matches
Mail list logo
