2009/5/25 Andrés Domínguez <[email protected]> > 2009/5/24 Don Dailey <[email protected]>: > > > > To be honest, I don't like the Bronstein clock. > > I disagree. I think Bronstein is the best time control > system. Players have fixed time per move, plus a > pool time that can be used at the moves you want.
Bronstein is illogical because you can lose a game on time even though you used far less time that your opponent. That is just insane to me. > > I believe the most logical time control for games in general is what is > > known as the Fischer clock. With Fischer your time control is some > fixed > > time plus some increment which is added to your clock after every move. > > I don't like Fischer time control because it adds time > to the total time remaining. This way players can > play stupid sente moves only to get nearly as time as > you want. For example, in chess a player can make > 50 checks (without repetition) and get 10 extra minutes, > then continue the "true" game. This also happens in Go, > where sometimes a player has nearly infinite kou threads. The principle of time clocks originally is to make FAIR time allocation. Before this, a player could take huge amounts of time and wear out the other player so it became a matter of physical endurance, not chess skill. So the time clock originally guaranteed that one player could not use more time than another. Of course Bronstein clocks limit the time, but not in a fair way. The principle of these NEW time controls, Fischer and Bronstein, is to take pressure off the players - to not have to lose games due to mad time scrambles. To some extent both systems do this, but Fischer does it in a fair way, Bronstein doesn't. With Fischer time control YOU, the player, get to allocate your time any way you see fit and you will never lose a game due to time forfeit even though you played more quickly that your opponent. Bronstein is more heavy handed about time control allocation and every move has it's own rigid time control system. The best way to compare the two is to imagine playing games with the two systems, but setting the global time pool time control to zero. For instance we could imagine the time control is zero + 10 seconds. With Bronstein, you are under pressure on every move to not exceed 10 seconds. With Fischer you call allocate more time to difficult moves as long as you play the easy moves more quickly. In REAL games, some move are far more difficult than others and Fischer gives the players far more control over dealing with that. You SHOULD be able to build up time on easy moves. Probably the biggest issue I have with Bronstein is the idea that you can play more quickly than your opponent and still lose due to time forfeit becuase the method is too rigid about controlling your time allocation, a decision you the player should be making. - Don > > > Andrés Domínguez > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
