On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:12 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > All of these considerations together would seem to indicate that it is > best to let the human have as much control as possible by allocating a > large pool of initial time and keeping the increment pretty small > (just > what is needed to comfortably play the ending and perhaps a small bit > more.) I believe this will lead to the strongest possible play on > average for a given amount of time per round of play.
I would like to also mention that CGOS is an extreme example of Fischer clock time control with tiny increment. 1/4 second is silently added to every move on CGOS and the purpose was exactly the same as what we are talking about - to prevent time-loss when a game lasts too long and a program cannot "physically negotiate" the clock in the required time. Of course in the case of CGOS, this is essentially due to network lag where it is known that some strong programs have lost easily won games despite playing instantly on their local clocks. To be technically accurate, CGOS actually uses the Bronstein clock because time is not allowed to accumulate. Think of it as the first 1/4 second is for free, if you can move faster than that no time is charged against you but if it takes longer than 1/4 sec you get the 1/4 second as a time-lag compensation. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
