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 [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
