steve uurtamo wrote: > 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 that is so much better than human time management! If the expected number of moves is based on applicable experience (including, maybe other games with the same opponent) and is updated as the move number increases, just the same as a 70 year old person has a longer life expectation than a 10 y.o. just for having survived 70 years, it will not experience serious problems. Humans, like myself, who do not take part in tournaments want to have at least 1/3 of our time unused to avoid "time pressure". Competitors may feel confident with just 5% of their time remaining, but that forces errors that would not have been played otherwise. Humans spend time looking at a clock, and are distracted by doing so. If the remaining time is small, they "reschedule" looking at the clock again soon, which adds extra pressure. Computers feel comfortable with any time settings, and no matter how naif the scheduling algorithm is, it will always be far better than human scheduling. Computers can safely approach using 99.999% of their time (asymptotically) and there is no other reason why a computer should lose on time than net lag. The reason for extra time (of any kind) is that humans are lost when they run out of time. Therefore, it clearly favors humans, because they would have lost that game. Jacques. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
